Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation

LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
SUCCESSFUL MENTORING RELATIONSHIPS AND EXEMPLARY
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES AMONG WOMEN PROTEGES WITHIN THE
UNITED STATES NAVY
by
David C. Moniz
PAUL HARDT, Ed.D., Faculty Mentor and Chair
PHYLLIS CLAYTON, Ed.D., Committee Member
CHERYL MCCONNAUGHEY, Ed.D., Committee Member
Harry McLenighan, Ed.D., Dean, School of Education
A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Capella University
December 08
© David C. Moniz, 2008
Abstract
The improvement of overall organizational performance is directly related to the
performance of individuals within the organization. With an organizational objective
of ensuring success through leadership development, a well-established mentoring
process is one intervention designed to meet this overall organizational objective. The
employment of both formal and informal practices in various settings has predictable
advantages and disadvantages based upon the type of organization and the objectives
of the program. A successful mentoring program needs to consider these advantages
and disadvantages in deciding the most effective and efficient methods to utilize in
achieving the objectives of the organization. The examination of mentoring
relationships with regard to gender is a critical factor in determining whether these
relationships were successful. The mentoring survey and the LPI were administered to
250 women within the United States Navy. This study examined the correlation
between having participated in successful mentoring relationships and the Five
Practices of Exemplary Leadership assessed through the application of the Leadership
Practices Inventory™ (LPI) among women protégés within the United States Navy.
The goal of the study was to identify the mentoring and leadership behaviors that are
successful when applied to women within the United States Navy. One particularly
significant stage of human performance improvement is the assessment of the gap
between the actual and the desired performance of individuals within an organization.
Employing the appropriate leadership traits, and providing productive mentoring
relationships, to women in the United States Navy would greatly increase the
likelihood of organizational improvement through improved performance of this often

overlooked source of human capital. The self-reported successful mentoring
situations/traits were related to exemplary leadership practice and advancement within
the United States Navy in anticipation of being able to employ the LPI as an
instrument to guide the development of future leader/mentors. The relationship that
exists between exemplary leadership practices and the participation in successful
mentoring relationships showed a potential return on investment through the
incorporation of mentoring as a substantial driver in the development of women within
organizations.
Dedication
This work is dedicated to my immediate and extended family.
First and foremost, this is dedicated to my wife Jennifer. Your insightful idea
helped launch and focus this research. The patience and encouragement that you
exhibited during the course of this journey have proven invaluable to the successful
completion. Thank you for your support throughout.
To my children, Mylie and Jack – The sacrifices that you have made with my
time contributed greatly to this research. A large objective of this undertaking has
been to show you the possibilities that are available to you as a direct result of the
desire and effort that you apply. Pursue what you desire and the results will certainly
follow.
To my best friends Jeff and Ann Manian, Thank you for the support during
difficult times that encouraged me to keep going. You were truly inspirational.
To my Dad, you have encouraged my educational pursuits for as far back as I
can remember, thank you.
iv
Acknowledgements
To my family, the patience that each of you have exhibited during this
undertaking is appreciated more than I could ever express – although I will continue to
attempt to show you daily.
To Mr. Dan Bozeman, you have guided and helped me greatly over the years. I
am truly grateful. Your assistance throughout this process has made all of this
possible.
To my dissertation committee as well as the Training and Performance
specialization faculty at Capella University – I have taken something from each of you
during this journey. I sincerely hope that I meet or exceed your expectations.
To Dr. Paul Hardt, the guidance and patience that you have displayed during
the process of conducting this research is greatly appreciated and will be remembered
always. Your insight into the process and the product has enabled me to produce this
study which will contribute to the existing body of knowledge greatly. Thank you for
sharing your accumulated wisdom and experience.
To Dr. Phyllis Clayton, the assistance that you have provided during the past
couple of years has been more than I could have ever expected.
To Dr. Cheryl McConnaughey, your knowledge of the research process and
your outside perspective has often shed a new light on my views.
v
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements v
List of Tables ix
List of Figures x
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1
Introduction to the Problem 1
Background of the Study 2
Purpose of the Study 4
Significance of the Study 5
Theoretical/Conceptual Framework 7
Statement of the Problem 9
Research Questions 10
Definition of Terms 12
Assumptions and Limitations 13
Organization of the Remainder of the Study 14
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 16
Introduction 16
Organizational Analysis and Alignment 18
Mentoring 24
Relationship between Mentoring and Leadership 33
The Assessment of Leadership Styles 33
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY 39
Introduction 39
vi
Researcher’s Philosophy 43
Theoretical Framework 43
Research Design 45
Comparison of Research Designs 47
Sampling Design 48
Measures 49
Field Testing 52
Data Collection Procedures 53
Ethical Considerations 55
Data Analysis Procedures 56
Limitations of Methodology 57
Expected Findings 58
CHAPTER 4. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 59
Description of Sample 61
Results 66
Summary 73
CHAPTER 5. RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 74
Background 74
Results 80
Conclusions 83
Limitations 84
Recommendations for Further Study 86
REFERENCES 90
vii
APPENDIX A. MENTORSHIP SELF-ASSESSMENT SURVEY 95
APPENDIX B. LEADERSHIP PRACTICES INVENTORY (LPI) 99
APPENDIX C. STRATEGY MAP 102
APPENDIX D. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR THE MENTORSHIP SELF-

ASSESSMENT SURVEY ITEMS 103
APPENDIX E. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR THE LEADERSHIP

PRACTICES INVENTORY (LPI) ITEMS 105
APPENDIX F. INDIVIDUAL BIVARIATE PEARSON CORRELATIONS FOR

RESEARCH QUESTION 1 107
viii
List of Tables
Table 1. Distribution of women in the United States Navy by paygrade 23
Table 2. Relationship between Research Questions, Methods, Analysis, and

Possible Conclusions 41
Table 3. Descriptive Statistics for the Participants’ Demographics 63
Table 4. Descriptive Statistics for the Participants’ Organization Variables 64
Table 5. MSA Most Positive Results 66
Table 6. MSA Least Positive Results 67
Table 7. LPI Least Positive Results 68
Table 8. Descriptive Statistics for LPI Subscales 69
Table 9. Overall Bivariate Pearson Correlations for Research Question 1 71
ix
List of Figures
Figure 1. Data collection process flowchart 55
x
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
Introduction to the Problem
A major concern facing organizations today is who will take the place of their
current leaders in the future (Zielinski, 2006). Leadership development and
advancement within the organization are important contributors to addressing this
troubling issue (Douglas, & McCauly, 1999; Hernez-Broome, & Hughes, 2004). A
major component of the leadership development efforts of the United States Navy is
the concept that individuals play a major role in developing their relief.
Women have historically lagged behind in the advancement to higher levels in
the United States Navy. The current methods of mentoring women in the United States
Navy are not meeting the needs of these women or the organization. Addressing this
lack of successful mentoring for women in the United States Navy will advance the
organization’s objective of preparing the leaders of the future. The study examines the
connections and links between advancement, leadership development, and mentorship
among women in the military, specifically the United States Navy.
The United States Navy’s ability to meet its objectives is directly related to the
performance of the individuals within the organization. One measure of this
performance is defined in this study by advancement within the organization. As the
number of women in the United States Navy increases, the need to develop these
1
women becomes a greater challenge to the organization as a whole. One method of
ensuring the future success of the organization is through the implementation of a
successful mentoring program to develop and advance the leaders of the future
(Donaldson, Ensher, & Grant-Vallone, 2000; Sosik, & Lee, 2002). Mentoring is one
role of a leader that “has been identified as an effective means of leadership
development in organizations” (Sosik, & Lee, 2002, p. 17). The relationship between
mentoring and exemplary leadership practices is a starting point for developing a
framework for the successful mentoring of women to fulfill the succession planning
needs of the organization.
Background of the Study
The United States Navy is an organization that places a great deal of emphasis
on tradition and culture. The fact that the United States Navy has historically been a
war fighting organization providing a limited role for women in the organization has
created a situation where there are a limited number of women in the senior leadership
positions because of this lack of war fighting experience. Mentoring has become a
significant factor in helping organizations achieve their leadership development
objectives. The value of mentoring in the United States Navy has proven equally as
valuable. Research has indicated that the advantages and disadvantages of formal and
informal mentoring processes lead organizations to model their mentoring programs
based on achieving organizational objectives with the greatest reward at the least cost
(Chao, Walz, & Gardner, 1992). Formal mentoring provides the organization with the
greatest chance for a successful program when the objectives are career centered
2
(D’Abate, Eddy, & Tannenbaum, 2003). Informal mentoring provides for the
accomplishment of objectives that are more psychosocial (Chao, Walz, & Gardner,
1992). The organizations ability to capitalize on the positive aspects of both the formal
and informal processes will result in a greater return on investment to the organization.
The literature in the field of mentoring revealed that successful relationships
that include women protégés have different characteristics from those involving male
protégés (Gibson, 2004; Darling, et al., 2006). Because of this difference, women
protégés have not received the same benefits from mentoring relationships as their
male counterparts (Gibson, 2004; Darling, et al., 2006). The gap in the research related
to across-gender relationships has prompted the examination of the specific
characteristics of mentoring relationships involving women protégés within the
framework of leadership development. Improvements in mentoring of women in the
United States Navy will benefit both the individual protégés and the United States
Navy as an organization.
The percentage of women in the workplace is increasing, but their lack of
representation at the level of senior leadership has resulted in a situation where most
individuals in the position to act as mentors are male. The fact that the number of
women leaders within an organization is growing, combined with the limited number
of women in senior positions, has led organizations to search for the best approach to
managing these relationships (Killan et al., 2005). Although no specifically stated
advancement goals for women are in place in the organization, advancement results
are reviewed at the end of the process to ensure a certain degree of representativeness
across various demographics. This situation makes it difficult to define a specific gap
3
between real and ideal. This situation is identical to the current situation that exists
today in the United States Navy, and one that is likely to continue to exist in the
future.
An extensive review of the literature has revealed the lack of research directly
related to the development of women in the workplace through mentoring. The
process of choosing the best individuals to serve as mentors for the organization’s
future leaders requires an assessment of the relationship between mentoring and the
practices of the leader (Scandura, & Williams, 2004). The improvement in mentoring
of women in the United States Navy involves each individual in the organization. The
resulting across-gender mentoring relationships are a significant factor in the
examination of the relatedness between having participated in successful mentoring
relationships and the exemplary leadership practices.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between exemplary
leadership practices, successful mentoring relationships, and advancement among
women in the United States Navy from the perspective of the women protégé. The
present literature is incomplete in attempting to address the developmental needs of
women protégés in the workplace, especially in cases of mentoring relationships that
are across-gender. This study sought to fill some of the major gaps in the present
literature about mentoring programs for women for application within the United
States Navy. By examining this relationship, solid recommendations to create a
4
theoretical and practical model for development of women protégés in the United
States Navy results.
Recent research has indicated that organizations are recognizing the
importance of developing women leaders (Killan, Hookah, & McCarty, 2005). Dutton
(2003), along with Hill and Bahnuik (1998), described the greater benefits to women
involved in mentoring relationships, as well as the problems of such relationships.
According to O’Neill (2005), the future success of many organizations is based on
their success helping women leaders succeed. Yet not much is known about how to
create successful mentoring programs for women.
The mentoring situation within the military has strengths and weaknesses. The
issue of mentoring has been addressed within the United States Navy, but little focus
has been placed on the specific needs of women in mentoring relationships, especially
when these relationships are across-gender. Mentoring for women in the United States
Navy is haphazard, in part because there are very few role models.
Significance of the Study
There are three reasons why this study is significant. First, women are playing
an increasingly important and diverse role within the United States Navy. Second,
there are a limited number of women in senior positions to serve in the role of mentor.
The third, and the most significant reason for conducting this study, is that it will help
the United States Navy achieve better organizational performance through the
incorporation of successful mentoring programs for women within the organization.
5
The percentage of women in the workplace continues to rise steadily (Killan et
al., 2005). As organizations attempt to target this increasing talent pool, their ability to
hire and retain women will be dependent upon the ability of the organization to meet
the specific developmental needs of these women. The organization that is successful
in developing this growing portion of the workforce will have achieved a great
advantage in the pursuit in attracting and retaining talented individuals, and thus
furthering their organizational objectives.
Research has suggested that we might better understand successful mentoring
programs by taking into account the special circumstances presented by relationships
that consider gender (Bierema, 1999; Ragins, 1997) and the relative standing of the
mentor/protégé (Chao, Walz, & Gardner, 1992). While gender differences are
addressed as requiring unique approaches, research targeting the developmental needs
of women in the United States Navy, specifically relationships comprised of women
protégés, is scarce. Although mentoring has been a part of the United States Navy’s
effort to develop the leaders of the future, the focus of mentoring on the leadership
development of women in the organization has not been previously examined. The
assessment of the connection between mentoring relationships and the exemplary
leadership practices will serve both the individual women protégé as well as the
United States Navy as an organization.
The gap in the research related to across-gender relationships, which is typical
in an organization like the United States Navy where males are predominantly in
senior positions, prompted the need to examine the specific characteristics of
mentoring relationships involving women protégés within the framework of leadership
6
development. This study seeks to fill some of the major gaps in the present literature
by providing a framework that addresses the specific mentoring needs of women. This
framework is based on an examination of the relationship between exemplary
women in the United States Navy. Specifically addressing the relationship between
leadership development and mentoring among women in the United States Navy has
resulted in a different perspective on the established shortcoming of mentoring
women.
Theoretical/Conceptual Framework
The researcher investigated this problem through the framework of positivism.
This framework is characterized by the view that there is one, fixed reality; that this
reality is measured using quantitative methodologies; and that the most appropriate
means to describe this reality is through a systematic approach to data collection and
analysis. From within this positivist framework, a correlational study was used to
investigate the relationship between the women protégés’ perception of participation
in a successful mentoring relationship and the self-reported exemplary leadership
practices.
The cost of specifically targeting the needs of women through mentoring
relationships is a consideration. However, the resultant benefits to the organization in
the area of improved organizational performance greatly outweigh the associated
costs. Additionally, the costs incurred when an organization fails to develop these
7
women ranges from decreased attraction and retention to the legal costs of
discrimination.
Rummler and Brache (1995) described individual, process, and organizational
levels of performance and further stated that each of these performance levels
contributes to the next higher level. Rather than each individual having to learn the
cultural, political, and technical aspects of their jobs, this information is obtained
through relationships developed with other individuals. The concept of mentoring is
based on the idea of maintaining this corporate knowledge.
Mentoring is examined through the framework of economic, systems, and
psychological theories that support organizational, process, and individual levels of
performance (Swanson & Holton, 2001). With leadership development as a primary
objective, mentoring is a means to achieve this objective. A Mentorship Self-
Assessment (MSA) survey was used to measure the women protégés perceptions of
having participated in a successful mentoring relationship.
Numerous models exist that attempt to define the desired qualities of a
successful leader. The competencies of people skills, character, judgment,
trustworthiness, managing group dynamics, planning, and implementing change are
commonly accepted competencies associated with successful leaders. Additionally,
these desired leadership practices must include consideration of the trends toward
globalization, technology, and return on investment (Hernez-Broome & Hughes,
2004). Although an evaluation of leadership models is beyond the scope of this study,
a presumption was made that engaging in these desired leadership practices, which are
8
valuable to the organization, results in improved performance and therefore
advancement to positions of greater authority within the organization.
The United States Navy is an organization in which every individual will
eventually advance to a position of leadership. The number of women in the
organization, and the diversity of roles they are asked to perform, is increasing. Those
individuals with the greatest understanding and the greatest capacity to advance the
goals of the organization promote to positions of greater leadership. Similarly,
leadership is based on the idea that individuals at various levels within an organization
are focused on various aspects of maintaining and improving the business of the
organization. The Leadership Practices Inventory™ (LPI) was used in this study to
assess the exemplary leadership practices.
Statement of the Problem
With the composition of the workforce changing, more organizations are
focused on developing the wide variety of talent within the organization to address the
need for a successful succession plan. A specific area that must be addressed in
securing the livelihood of the United States Navy into the future is the development of
women in the workplace. The traditional methods of developing talented individuals
are not meeting the needs of women in the United States Navy. Mentoring in the
United States Navy is a program that is designed to develop the leaders of the future,
but this program fails to take into consideration the specific needs of the increasing
number and diversity of the roles of the women portion of the organization. The cost
of this lack of leadership development is borne in terms ranging from recruiting and
9
retention issues to discrimination and legal issues. Consequently, the research problem
is that women in the United States Navy are not advancing and are therefore not filling
the leadership needs of the United States Navy.
Research Questions
The study is a quantitative study examining the relationship between the
variables of exemplary leadership practices and successful mentoring relationships.
The research suggests that mentoring is one way that organizations address their
leadership development needs. The ability to assess the relationship between the
variables of exemplary leadership practices and advancement with successful
mentoring relationships will allow the organization to reasonably predict performance
of one variable based upon performance on another (LaMar, 2004).
The characteristics of a successful mentoring relationship are defined as the
degree to which the protégé describes the value of the career and psychosocial support
provided by the mentor. D’Abate et al. (2003) described the career and psychosocial
competencies of directing, tutoring, coaching, modeling, teaching, problem solving,
providing practical application, providing feedback, sharing information, affirming,
confidence building, encouraging, counseling, advocating, introducing, sheltering, and
socializing that are achieved through these mentoring activities. Chao (1998) included
the additional competencies of organizational leverage, personal growth, emotional
support, and guidance as tasks performed by the mentor.
Individual performance contributes to organizational performance. The United
States Navy rewards individual performance by advancing individuals through its
10
promotion system. The study explores the issues surrounding the roles of the mentor
and protégé as well as the value of the relationship to the organization. Determining
the relationship between advancement, leadership practices, and mentoring
participation will assist in developing a mentorship model for application to women
protégés in the United States Navy.
The specific research questions and hypotheses that were investigated are
1. “What is the relationship between the self-reported exemplary leadership
practices of women protégés as measured by the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI)
and their perception of having participated in successful mentoring relationships
within the United States Navy?”
2. “What is the relationship between the perception of women protégés of their
mentoring relationship and their advancement within the United States Navy, while
controlling for time in service?”
HØ1: The first null hypothesis states that “there is no relationship between the
self-reported exemplary leadership practices of women protégés as measured by the
Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) and their perception of having participated in
successful mentoring relationships within the United States Navy.”
H1: The alternative hypothesis is that “there is a relationship between the self-
reported exemplary leadership practices of women protégés as measured by the
11
HØ2. The second null hypothesis states that “there is no relationship between
the perception of women protégés of their mentoring relationship and their
advancement within the United States Navy while controlling for time in service.”
H2. The alternative hypothesis is that “there is a relationship between the
perception of women protégés of their mentoring relationship and their advancement
within the United States Navy while controlling for time in service.”
Definition of Terms
Across-gender. Refers to relationships that consist of male mentors and women
protégés.
Advancement. Progressing through the organization from one level to the next
higher level.
Career mentoring. Career mentoring includes areas addressed in the
mentor/protégé relationship that specifically relate to the workplace (Chao, 1998;
Sosik & Lee, 2002).
Desired leadership practices. Within the context of this paper, are those
practices that are valued by the organization for their contribution of mission
accomplishment.
12
Formal Mentoring. The formal mentoring process describes relationships that
are developed through an assignment of a protégé to a mentor (D’Abate, Eddy, &
Tannenbaum, 2003, p. 364).
Informal Mentoring. The informal mentoring process, in contrast to the formal
process is characterized by the naturally occurring relationship between mentor and
protégé (D’Abate et al., 2003).
Mentoring. All “developmental interactions [that] involve exchanges between
two or more people with the goal of personal or professional development” (D’Abate
et al., 2003, p. 364).
Practices of Exemplary Leadership. The practices that are measured using the
Leadership Practices Inventory™ are: Modeling the Way, Inspiring a Shared Vision,
Challenging the Process, Enabling Others to Act, and Encouraging the Heart (Kouzes
& Posner, 2002).
Psychosocial mentoring. Psychosocial mentoring includes areas addressed in
the mentor/protégé relationship that specifically relate to the personal development of
the protégé (Chao, 1998; Sosik & Lee, 2002).
Successful Mentoring Relationship. As determined by the protégé, the degree
to which the relationship meets the career and psychosocial needs of the individual.
Assumptions and Limitations
The following assumptions were made for the study
1. The respondents to both the LPI and the mentorship questionnaire are both
candid and honest.
13
2. The relationship between advancement and performance within the United
States Navy is valid.
The following limitations are acknowledged as part of the study
1. Non-response bias may result due to the voluntary participation in the
survey.
2. The employment of statistical methods with Likert scale data, although
commonly employed, has critics.
3. The instruments used in the study collect data that is self-reported. This
limitation is related to the assumption that the respondents are both candid
and honest in their responses.
4. The generalizability of the results might be limited to military organizations.
This limitation is included in the recommendations for further research.
5. The study is conducted as a snapshot in time vice a longitudinal study. This
limitation is included in the recommendations for further research.
6. This study targets only women.
Organization of the Remainder of the Study
The study examines the questions in four steps, represented by the four
remaining chapters of this work. Chapter 2 reviews the literature pertinent to the areas
of mentorship, leadership development, and Exemplary leadership practices. Chapter 3
describes the methodology and procedures, including the design, population and
sample, instrumentation, data collection and data analysis used in the examination of
the relationship between the Exemplary leadership practices and successful mentoring
14
relationships. Chapter 4 describes the data analysis and findings of the study. Chapter
5 describes the conclusions and recommendations as well as recommendations for
further study.
15
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
This chapter will deal with the three major themes in the literature regarding
organizational performance, leadership, and mentoring. With the changing role of
women in the United States Navy, since being allowed to serve in certain combat
situations, it is important to understand these changes and validate the relationship
between having participated in a successful mentoring relationship from the
perspective of the women protégé and the self-reported exemplary leadership practices
exhibited by these women. Young, Cady, & Foxon, (2006) described the contradictory
research relating to gender differences in the mentoring process. As a result, further
investigation in needed to explain these differences and the reasons behind them.
relationships is a consideration. However, the resultant benefits to the organization, in
the area of improved organizational performance, greatly outweigh the associated
costs. The costs incurred when an organization fails to develop these women ranges
from decreased attraction and retention to the legal costs of discrimination.
The concept of mentoring is based on the idea of maintaining corporate
knowledge and contributing to organizational performance. Rummler and Brache
(1995) stated that each of the individual, process, and organizational performance
16
levels contributes to the next higher performance level. Rather than each individual
having to learn the cultural, political, and technical aspects of their jobs, this
information is obtained through relationships developed with other individuals.
Mentoring is examined through the framework of economic, systems, and
performance (Swanson & Holton, 2001). The functions and types of mentoring
relationships are each evaluated through this framework to provide solid
recommendations to aid in the development of a theoretical and practical model for the
successful mentoring of women protégés in the United States Navy. The MSA survey,
Appendix A, is used to measure the women protégés perceptions of the characteristics
of a successful mentoring relationship.
successful leader. Although an evaluation of these leadership models is beyond the
scope of this study, a presumption is made that engaging in these desired leadership
practices, which are valuable to the organization, results in advancement to positions
of greater authority within the organization. The competencies of people skills,
character, judgment, trustworthiness, managing group dynamics, planning, and
implementing change are commonly accepted competencies associated with
successful leaders. Additionally, these desired leadership practices must include
consideration of the trends toward globalization, technology, and return on investment
(Hernez-Broome & Hughes, 2004). Although an evaluation of leadership models is
beyond the scope of this study, a presumption is made that engaging in these desired
leadership practices, which are valuable to the organization, results in improved
17
performance and therefore advancement to positions of greater authority within the
organization.
eventually advance to a position of greater leadership. The number of women in the
organization, and the diversity of roles they are asked to perform, has increased over
the past 20 years. Those individuals with the greatest understanding and the greatest
capacity to advance the goals of the organization have advanced to positions of greater
leadership. Similarly, leadership is based on the idea that individuals at various levels
within an organization are focused on various aspects of maintaining and improving
the business of the organization. The Leadership Practices Inventory™ (LPI),
Appendix B, is used in this study to assess the exemplary leadership practices.
The improvement of individual performance is achieved through the
enhancement of knowledge, skills, and abilities. The building of networks through
mentoring helped build the social capital aspect of development. Human capital theory
stresses that organizations reward individuals for improving themselves
(VanDerLinden, 2005). Some investments in human capital include formal and
informal education and mentoring.
Organizational Analysis and Alignment
An interesting concept that was presented by Walpole (2000, p. 426) was that
of mimetic isomorphism which described “organizations consciously modeling
themselves on other organizations that are perceived as successful or legitimate.” This
concept is descriptive of, and appropriate to, the mentoring process. Individual leaders,
18
both consciously and unconsciously, model themselves after successful leaders around
them.
Bassi, Benson, and Cheney (1996) described the need for alignment of
organizational goals and objectives. The mission, vision, values of the organizational
level; the work practices and processes of the process level; and the human resource
systems of the performer level must all be in alignment for optimal performance. The
alignment of the organization is an evaluation of the parallelism and direct support
between each of the three levels of performance. Organizational goals must include
leadership development that is specific to their individual business goals and
challenges (Hernez-Broome & Hughes, 2004).
Hernez-Broome and Hughes (2004) further pointed out that mentoring is
increasingly a key element of leadership development. Scandura and Williams (2004)
reiterate the fact that a growing number of organizations are interested in the
development of leadership and mentoring skills of their managers. The benefits to the
organization of employee development include improved attitudes and increased
productivity (Ragins, Cotton, & Miller, 2000). The assumption is that there is a
relationship between the success of leaders and the quality of the mentoring
relationship(s) that have assisted them throughout their careers. This statement is
reflective of the hierarchy of the United States Navy’s stated mission, goals, and
objectives are included as Appendix C.
Swanson (1995) divided performance requirements into areas concerned with
maintaining the system and improving the system. Langdon (1997) contributed to this
idea by expanding the perspective by assessing whether the changes require the
19
system to be established, maintained, improved, or extinguished. Concerns among
workers of being unqualified, due to lack of development opportunities, support, and
feedback, impact the organization (Murphy, 2006). In addition to the “glass ceiling,” a
significant barrier to advancement for women in the United States Navy has been a
lack of same gender mentors.
The performance variables of mission, system, capacity, motivation, and
expertise are used to describe the organizational, process, and individual levels of
performance within the organization (Swanson, 1994). The mission variable relates to
the accomplishment of each of the organizational goals stated by the leadership of the
United States Navy. The systems variable relates to whether there is a mentoring
system in place to promote the development of exemplary leadership, and what
barriers exist for the individual within this system. The capacity variable relates to
whether the leadership, capital, and infrastructure are in place in the United States
Navy to support leadership development efforts through mentoring. The motivation
variable relates to the culture, rewards, and policies at the organization level; the
information available to the individual at the process level; and the desire to overcome
at the individual level. The expertise variable relates to the selection and training, the
process by which these are accomplished, and the resultant knowledge, skills, and
abilities of the individual.
While developing the organization’s talent for the future is critical, the
determination of which individuals have the potential has often proved faulty
(Zielinski, 2006). The successful organization will ensure the development needs of
each member of the organization. Maxwell (1989, p. 139) stated:
20
Every effective leadership mentor makes the development of leaders one of his
highest priorities in life. He knows that the potential of the organization
depends on the growth of its leadership. The more leaders there are, the greater
its chance of success.
Another framework for organizational assessment begins with an examination
of the structural, political, human resources, and symbolic frames of reference
(Bolman & Deal, 2003). The United States Navy, like any other organization, has its
very specific frames of reference that the individuals within the organization must
function within in order to be successful. The structure of the United States Navy
includes the hierarchal organizational leadership and the technical aspects present in
the organization. Technical limitations influence the capacity of the organization to
provide important opportunities to women. Standardization of training and operating
procedures reinforce the structural component of this evaluative framework.
The politics that exist within the United States Navy are created both internally
and externally. The internal political situation is reflective of the relative standing of
individuals that exists within the hierarchal structure. The external political situation
includes legislative requirements, public opinion, and public interaction. The human
resources component of the United States Navy includes the concepts of teamwork
and mentorship. The symbolic (or cultural) frame of begins with the uniform and
insignia that are common throughout the United States Navy and the specific
subcultures within the larger organization. These frames must be understood by those
within the United States Navy because each is vital to the performance of the
organization. Stead (2005) points out that a purpose of mentoring is to familiarize
21
individuals to the organization. This is achieved through the function of career
mentoring to address the structural, political, and symbolic frames. The human
resource frame is addressed through psychosocial mentoring.
Women account for less than 15% of the active duty component of the United
States Navy (Navy Personnel Command, 2007). This total percentage represents only
a very small increase over the past 13 years (since 1994 when the United States Navy
notified Congress that the number of communities open to women increased from
60% to 91% of the total communities within the organization). While the variety of
opportunities for women in the United States Navy is increasing, women continue to
serve in the greatest numbers in traditional fields. This is one reason that the
availability of women in positions to serve as mentors has not increased at the same
rate throughout the United States Navy.
Although no specifically stated advancement goals for women are in place in
the organization, advancement results are reviewed at the end of the process to ensure
a certain degree of representativeness across various demographics. This situation
makes it difficult to define a specific gap between real and ideal. The traditional (non-
war fighting) restricted line and staff communities continue to have the greatest
percentage of women – over 72% of the total women in the United States Navy.
Women in the war fighting communities make up the other 27%. Along with this
apparent limitation, the relative seniority of women in the United States Navy across
all fields adds to this dilemma. While women comprise almost 15% of total active
United States Navy, they account for less than 10% of the most senior officer and
enlisted ranks and greater than 17% of the junior ranks (NPC, 2007), as shown in
22
Table 1. This understanding of this aspect of the United States Navy sets the stage for
an examination of mentoring within the organization.
Table 1
Distribution of Women in the United States Navy by Paygrade
Paygrade % Women % Men
Officer
ADM 5.7 94.3
CAPT 11.5 88.5
CDR 12.9 87.1
LCDR 13.0 87.0
LT 15.8 84.2
LTJG 17.3 82.7
ENS 18.1 81.9
Enlisted
E9 5.5 94.5
E8 6.5 93.5
E7 8.2 91.8
E6 12.1 87.9
E5 16.0 84.0
E4 16.4 83.6
E1-3 18.3 81.7
23
Mentoring
According to O’Neill (2005), the future success of many organizations is based
on their success helping women leaders succeed. Yet not much is known about how to
create successful mentoring programs for women. The present literature is limited in
attempting to address the mentoring needs that are specific to women in the United
States Navy, especially in the case of mentoring relationships that are across-gender.
Mentoring has accumulated many definitions throughout the literature. The
distinctions that have been made between coaching and mentoring, although valuable,
have little impact on the discussion and were set aside. The definition of mentoring,
within the context of this paper, is drafted to include all “developmental interactions
[that] involve exchanges between two or more people with the goal of personal or
professional development” (D’Abate et al., 2003, p. 364).
Research has further suggested that we might better understand successful
mentoring programs by taking into account the special circumstances presented by
relationships that consider gender (Bierema, 1999; Ragins, 1997) and the relative
standing of the mentor/protégé (Chao, et al., 1992). The percentage of women in the
workplace continues to rise steadily (O’Neill, 2005). As organizations attempt to
target this growing talent pool, their ability to advance these women has been
dependent upon the ability of the organization to meet the specific developmental
needs of these women.
Darwin (2000) examined the context of mentoring through the functionalist
and radical humanist perspectives. The functionalist perspective addressed the cultural
and technical transfer of knowledge from the mentor to the protégé. The radical
24
humanist perspective described a collaborative and dynamic relationship between co-
equals founded on openness and the ability to take risks. This framework addresses the
various aspects and purposes of the relationship between the mentor, the protégé, and
the organization.
The impact of mentoring relationships on women varies as the environment
changes. The military, and specifically the United States Navy, environment is a
unique sector with limited research regarding the mentoring of women. The fact that
more opportunities exist for women to participate in combat roles, that they had been
previously banned from, presents the military with a new challenge. The importance
of these combat roles within the United States Navy has had an adverse effect on the
advancement opportunities of women. One reason for this adverse effect is the lack of
women mentors in this area of career development (Knouse & Webb, 2000). The
United States Navy has attempted to address this area of concern through the
implementation of a formal mentoring process.
Types of Mentoring Relationships
Formal Mentoring. The formal mentoring process describes relationships that
are developed through an assignment of a protégé to a mentor. Formal mentoring
provides the organization with the greatest chance for a successful program when the
objectives are career centered (D’Abate et al., 2003). This process seems to target the
inclusion of all individuals within the organization.
The disadvantages of the formal process are a lack of the protégé taking
advantage of sources other than the assigned mentor (Keele, Buckner, & Bushnell,
25
1987), not being able to readily adapt to environmental influences (Higgins, & Kram,
2001), and the tendency to be focused short-term (Higgins, & Thomas, 2001). Young
and Perrewe (2004) found that “women protégés are likely to have higher expectations
for mentoring partners than male protégés’ (pp. 120-121) in formal relationships
focused on career development.
Informal Mentoring. Informal mentoring provides for the accomplishment of
objectives that are more psychosocial (Chao et al., 1992). The informal mentoring
process, in contrast to the formal process, is characterized by the naturally occurring
relationship between mentor and protégé.
Disadvantages of the informal process are perceived favoritism (Tourigny,
2005), lack of technical mentoring skills (Arnaud, 2003) and the difficulty some
managers experience in applying the appropriate strategy based on the development
level of the protégé (Ralph, 2004).
The understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of these types of
mentoring leads to a discussion of the functions of mentoring and the attempt to
accentuate the advantages while minimizing the disadvantages.
The mentoring program in the Navy is a formal program where each individual
is assigned a mentor that is at least on level above the protégé. The formal mentoring
program is standardized throughout the entire organization; therefore individuals are
familiar with the operational definition of mentoring as applied by the study. This
program is specifically designed to address the career centered objectives of
mentoring. The fact that formal mentoring is short-term focused (Higgins, & Thomas,
2001), and that job reassignment in the Navy occurs every few years are significant.
26
Additionally, the differences in expectations between genders addressed by Young and
Perrewe (2004) are important to consider with regard to mentoring relationships
involving women protégés.
Functions of the Mentoring Relationship
Career. Career mentoring includes areas addressed in the mentor/protégé
relationship that specifically relate to the workplace. Examples of career mentoring
include assisting the protégé with visibility in the workplace, networking, and
coaching.
Psychosocial. Psychosocial mentoring includes areas addressed in the
mentor/protégé relationship that specifically relate to the personal development of the
protégé. Examples of psychosocial mentoring include building confidence, self-
esteem, and personal development in general. Psychosocial mentoring is more
process- than problem-centered and aids in the personal development of the protégé.
Research has shown that women tend to seek psychosocial support more than
men, while men seem to seek more instrumental, or career mentoring. Women-women
mentoring situations do well in meeting this psychosocial need. Relationships where
the mentor is male provide the same types of support to both men and women - more
career and less psychosocial (Gibson, 2004; Darling, et al., 2006). This is a major
consideration in the evaluation of across-gender mentoring relationships, especially in
the United States Navy where there is a limited number of women that are available as
mentors.
27
Social Network Theory
The term mentoring has been used to include many differing processes and
goals. The specific focus is on the characteristics and process of the relationship,
regardless of the structure employed. Changes in organizational structures and career
definitions have brought about the need for a network of multiple mentors. Knowing
why, knowing how, and knowing whom are career competencies that are important in
the individual’s ability to contribute to organizational performance (de Janasz,
Sullivan, & Whiting, 2003).
The concept of social networking allows the relationship to incorporate the
advantages of each of the various types and functions. Higgins and Kram (2001)
describe this developmental network through the concepts that include the
relationships, the strength of the relationships, and the diversity of each of the
relationships. Social networking best achieves the desired results for the protégé by
including the advantages of career and psychosocial mentoring relationships while
minimizing the impact of the disadvantages. The most important impact in
incorporating social networking is that it best addresses the cultural and social
concerns associated with mentoring relationships.
Barriers and Tensions
Mentoring is a relationship-based activity. Not unlike other relationships,
irrational beliefs cause damage to the relationship and must be recognized and
managed. Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT) has stimulated application and
research in the area of rational mentoring (David et al., 2005). Irrational beliefs, on the
28
part of the mentor, often impact the mentoring relationship. These irrational beliefs
change as the stage of the mentoring relationship changes, but includes mentor
thoughts of always being successful, being respected and loved by protégés, that
protégé efforts should equal mentor efforts, that protégés should never disappoint or
leave, and that mentoring should be enjoyed all the time (Johnson, Huwe, & Lucas,
2000). Protégés must be aware that these irrational beliefs exist in the relationship in
order to fully take advantage of the relationship.
Focusing career development opportunities only on individuals labeled as
high-potential can backfire and actually be demotivating for those individuals not
among those considered to possess this high-potential. Lack of networks and
experience are additional barriers that might each be overcome through an effective
mentoring relationship (Kilian, Hukai, & McCarty, 2005). Levin and Mattis (2006)
include in the barriers to women career advancement: lack of career development and
succession planning, lack of mentoring and exclusion from informal career networks,
and perceptions that women’s leadership styles do not fit with corporate culture. The
cost of failing to address these issues can be identified by examining the benefits of
addressing diversity.
The challenges of across-gender relationships range from “nonsexual,
psychological intimate relationships to the extreme of sexual harassment” (Hurley,
1996, p. 42). Organizations must manage these concerns as they attempt to take full
advantage of the mentoring relationship. Young, Cady, and Foxon (2006) also
describe, from the psychological perspective, the possible impact of sexual issues that
are inherent in across-gender mentoring relationships. The fact that these are most
29
often not acted upon is only a part of the issue. The larger concern is the perceptions
of others within the organization may affect long-term career development.
The greatest costs of failing to address diversity have been turnover, the ability
to adjust to a changing marketplace, and ultimately make better business decisions.
Turnover, which is greater among women than men, can cost the organization
anywhere from 75% to 193% of the individuals annual salary. Women are making a
growing number of buying decisions in the areas of items traditionally purchased by
men as well as retaining the decision-making power of items they have traditionally
purchased. This greater purchasing power has led to changes in product design and
marketing within organizations (Levin & Mattis, 2006). Although the United States
Navy is not driven by the bottom line, these concerns apply equally to women in the
United States Navy. “At its most basic level, blocking women’s advancement in
organizations can be expensive because of the legal liability incurred” (Kottke, &
Agars, 2005, p. 198).
Some of the tensions connected with mentoring issues have been the level of
the issues involved, exposure and vulnerability, reliance, and control. Additionally,
tensions associated with the nature of the relationship include emotional intensity,
power and influence, trust, and commitment (Stead, 2005). The visibility, and
therefore the risks, associated with the mentoring relationship are increased in
relationships that involve minorities within the organization. An example of this risk is
if the protégé appears incompetent, this might reflect upon the mentor’s competence.
This risk is increased with perceptions and stereotypes about performance attributed to
the minority (Ragins, 1997). The fact that women are a minority within the United
30
States Navy is comparable to this situation, and is evidenced by the historically limited
roles that women were allowed to fulfill.
One specific aspect of the mentoring relationship that is affected by the gender
of the members is role modeling. Male protégés receive more role modeling from
male mentors, while women protégés receive more role modeling from women
mentors. Informal mentoring might also result in greater reported career mentoring
and role modeling (Scandura, & Williams, 2001). Across-gender mentoring has shown
benefits in the areas of career and psychosocial development, but still appears lacking
in the area of role modeling (Scandura, & Williams, 2001). One reason for this
shortfall might be related to interpersonal relationship theory.
Levesque et al. (2005) pointed out that “gender differences in individual
perceptions of the importance of various mentoring behaviors may create problems in
across-gender mentoring relationships, particularly for women…” (p. 432). The reason
that this concern targets women particularly is due to the fact that women are much
more likely to be involved in across-gender relationships. Generally speaking,
Levesque et al., (2005) found little difference in men’s and women’s perceived
importance of different mentoring traits. The difference that occurs most frequently,
however, is regarding the mentoring trait of championing – where women desire this
trait in a mentor much more than their male counterparts. Mentors must realize and
account for this difference to perform their roles to the fullest. Giscombe (2007)
pointed out that mentoring programs that were effective were the most stringent in
their selection of protégés.
31
Recent research has further indicated that organizations are recognizing the
importance of developing women leaders (Killan et al., 2005). Dutton (2003), along
with Hill and Bahnuik (1998), described the greater benefits to women involved in
mentoring relationships, as well as the problems of such relationships. The approach
of the mentoring relationship, through the balancing of advantages and disadvantages,
has the desired outcomes of producing specific benefits for the organization, the
mentor, and the protégé.
D’Abate et al. (2003) described the career and psychosocial competencies of
directing, tutoring, coaching, modeling, teaching, problem solving, providing practical
application, providing feedback, sharing information, affirming, confidence building,
encouraging, counseling, advocating, introducing, sheltering, and socializing that are
achieved through these mentoring activities. Chao (1998) included the additional
competencies of organizational leverage, personal growth, emotional support, and
guidance as tasks performed by the mentor. The practices of effective mentors include
development of protégés, models of self-acceptance, experienced and confident in
their skills and capabilities; fulfill career and psychosocial functions, patience, and
flexibility (Johnson, Huwe, & Lucas, 2000). This partial list further defines a
successful mentoring relationship. Mentoring has been shown to help women access
networks and enhance organizational performance and commitment (Munde, 2000;
Gibson, 2004). These benefits outweigh the cost of the potential barriers and
challenges of mentoring women in the United States Navy. With the purpose of
mentoring being leadership development, the relationship between these two variables
must be examined.
32
Relationship between Mentoring and Leadership
The interpersonal relationship theory, which states individual characteristics
influence interactions, level of attraction, and perceptions, is an important additional
consideration in determining and managing the mentoring relationship (Young &
Perrewe, 2000). Areas where benefits to leaders are achieved through mentoring
include professional development, improved leadership skills, and leadership-capacity
building. A criticism of mentoring for leadership development is that it only addresses
selected individuals (Stead, 2005). This selective mentoring has the increased potential
for being counter-productive to organizational performance goals.
The Assessment of Leadership Styles
generally accepted competencies associated with successful leaders. Additionally,
2004). Although an evaluation of these leadership models is beyond the scope of this
study, a generalization of various models supports the idea that engaging in these
desired leadership practices, which are valuable to the organization, results in
advancement to positions of greater authority within the organization. The model
included in this study is the Five Practices of Exemplary Leadership (Kouzes &
Posner, 2002).
33
Five Practices of Exemplary Leadership
Kouzes and Posner (2002) report the most common traits “that followers look
for and admire in a leader [are] someone who is honest, competent, inspiring, and
forward looking” (p. 24). Contained in the exemplary leadership practices are the
common leadership elements of vision, creativity, empowerment, and role modeling
(McCollum, 1999).
Model the Way. Modeling the Way is comprised of the leadership
commitments of clarifying personal values and aligning values with actions. Modeling
the Way refers to the leader’s gift of making the values they espouse known. The
leader sets the example both in words and through actions.
Inspire a Shared Vision. The ability to envision the future as it should be is a
trait that is essential to leadership. The leadership commitments dictate that, along
with having the vision, the leader must enlist the support of others to ensure the vision
is realized. The process of enlisting this support is accomplished, in part, through the
leader’s ability to paint a vivid picture of the future through the identification of
common aspirations.
Challenge the Process. Challenging the process incorporates the commitments
of exploring ways to change and grow while experimenting and taking risks through
small wins. Challenging the process requires the leader, through the employment of
modeling the way and inspiring a shared vision, to ensure small victories along the
path of the unknown. The fear of the unknown often causes inaction. This approach is
ineffective when the objective of goal achievement requires taking steps in new
34
directions, accepting calculated risks, learning from mistakes, and celebrating small
victories along the way to success.
Enable Others to Act. Trust, interdependence, and the sharing of power are
central to enabling others to act. Each individual needs to know that the other will give
and take equally. The commitments of this practice are promoting cooperative goals
and sharing power. From the leader’s perspective, this includes empowering
individuals with the authority and responsibility to successfully accomplish the
determined goals. A key factor in enabling others to act is ensuring that individuals are
connected with those who possess the information and resources necessary to enable
success. This facilitates goal achievement through the passing on of confidence and
competence.
Encourage the Heart. Leaders encourage the heart by setting the standards and
expecting them to be achieved. Accountability, recognition, and appropriate feedback,
given with sincerity and passion provide encouragement that is contagious. Leaders
perpetuate these successes through the commitments of celebrations of
accomplishment and public, meaningful recognition.
The LPI is an assessment instrument that measures the specific practices that
exemplary leader’s exhibit. The LPI is used as an assessment instrument to measure
the degree of competency of individuals in each of these five practices listed below.
Leadership Practices Inventory™ (LPI)
The LPI consists of the Five Practices of Exemplary Leadership that are
measured utilizing an interval Likert scale. The interval scale indicates that each score
35
relates to an actual amount (Heiman, 2001). In the case of the LPI, these amounts are
the values assigned from the self-assessment results of the inventory. The practices
that are measured are: Modeling the Way, Inspiring a Shared Vision, Challenging the
Process, Enabling Others to Act, and Encouraging the Heart (Kouzes & Posner, 2002).
These critical dimensions were derived from a quantitative and qualitative process
where individual leaders described their personal best examples and these descriptions
were analyzed to determine commonalities (Kouzes & Posner, 2002).
Psychometric Properties of the Leadership Practices Inventory™ (LPI)
The psychometric properties of the LPI have been determined through the
extensive application of the instrument across diverse audiences (Kouzes & Posner,
2000). The instrument has proven both valid and reliable in measuring the practices
that exemplary leaders engage in when they are at their personal best. These
psychometric properties are addressed in chapter 3.
Comparison of Leadership Practices Inventory™ and Mentoring
The mentoring relationship is a critical function of a leader, and the LPI
attempts to assess skills that are common among exemplary leaders. The practices are
assessed through the use of the LPI which consists of 30 statements divided equally
between the five practices. The competencies of successful mentoring relationships are
selected from the literature on the subject. The competencies associated with the
mentoring relationship are compared to the Five Practices of Exemplary Leadership to
determine the relatedness of the two groups. The previously mentioned Five Practices
36
of Exemplary Leadership and competencies of effective mentoring relationships
provide the framework for the comparison of these two sets of practices/competencies.
The comparison of the LPI and mentoring characteristics is based upon the operational
definitions of the terms provided in the research as well as possessing, at a minimum,
face validity.
Using the LPI as the basis for comparing mentoring competencies, the initial
practice is Modeling the Way. Specific mentoring areas that align with this practice
include providing guidance, modeling, providing practical application, problem-
solving, and sharing of information. The leader/mentor sets the standards and moves
toward achieving these standards through communication of the standard, establishing
achievable goals along the way, and meeting these goals through honest, forthright
guidance and modeling along the way. Problem-solving throughout the process
provides the follower/protégé practical application and promotes the sharing of
information along the path to success.
Inspiring a Shared Vision, addresses the future and the potential successes that
are possible. This practice of leadership is the most obviously, and conceptually,
aligned with the purpose of the mentoring relationship. The communication of future
needs, interests, and possibilities is the overarching purpose of the mentoring
relationship, preparing both the organization and its members for future success.
Challenging the Process is a vital practice in which organizations and
individuals must excel to be successful in an ever-changing world. The practice
includes risk-taking, initiative, and innovation. These skills also require a large part of
the specific competencies of mentoring. Building the confidence of the
37
follower/protégé is an important objective that must be achieved through teaching,
coaching, and problem-solving. Encouraging and affirming behaviors on the part of
the leader/mentor provide the follower/protégé with the additional support and
confidence necessary to assume the risks and exhibit innovation and initiative.
Enabling Others to Act is about relationships, diversity, and developing
competencies. The relationship component includes the mentoring competencies of
introducing, advocating, sheltering, and socializing. The leader/mentor removes the
barriers to success through relationship building with individuals who possess the
resources required for success. The respect for the diverse considerations adds to the
strength of the relationship by facilitating personal growth, emotional support, and
increased skills development.
Encouraging the Heart provides the support and recognition that are
encouraging and affirming to the follower/protégé while providing the feedback that is
important to improvement and success. Showing appreciation for successes and
providing meaningful feedback provides the follower/protégé with the guidance and
the confidence for improved performance.
A comparison of the competencies of a successful mentor and the Five
Practices of Exemplary Leadership assessed using the LPI reveals sizeable overlap.
The validity of the LPI as an assessment instrument, the inclusion of the concept of
developmental networking (Higgins & Kram, 2001) into mentoring, and the
comparison of leadership practices and mentorship traits supports the claim that the
LPI should be a viable instrument for use in determining the leader’s likely success in
mentoring subordinates and contributing to the development of future leaders.
38
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY
Introduction
The methodology employed in this study was designed specifically to address
the outlined research questions. The relationship between the research questions,
methods used, analysis, and possible conclusions to be derived are delineated in Table
2. The analysis of each question and the supporting possible conclusions are
supportive of the hypotheses.
While gender differences are addressed as requiring different approaches,
research targeting the needs of women in the workplace, specifically relationships
comprised of women protégés, is scarce. The gap in the research related to these
across-gender relationships, which is typical in an organization where males are
predominantly in senior positions, such as the United States Navy, prompted the need
for examining of the specific characteristics of mentoring relationships involving
women protégés within the framework of leadership development.
Recent research indicated that organizations are recognizing the importance of
developing women leaders (Killan et al., 2005). Dutton (2003), along with Hill and
Bahnuik (1998), described the greater benefits to women involved in mentoring
relationships, as well as the problems of such relationships. According to O’Neill
(2005), the future success of many organizations is based on their achievement in
39
helping women leaders thrive. Yet not much is known about how to create successful
mentoring programs for women.
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between exemplary
leadership practices and successful mentoring relationships among women in the
United States Navy from the perspective of the protégé. By examining this
relationship, solid recommendations to create a theoretical and practical model for
development of women protégés in organizations result. This study fills some of the
major gaps in present literature by providing a model that addresses the specific
mentoring needs of women. This model is based on an examination of the relationship
between exemplary leadership practices, successful mentoring relationships, and
advancement among women in the United States Navy.
The present literature is limited in attempting to address the developmental
needs of women protégés in the workplace, especially in cases of mentoring
relationships that are across-gender. The research questions address the dependent
variable of performance at the organizational, process, and individual levels. An
understanding of performance at each level of this hierarchy is important to ensuring
organizational success. Individual performance, as defined in this study, is measured
by the value of the individual to the organization. This value is indicated in the United
States Navy by individual advancement within the organization.
40
Table 2
Relationship between Research Questions, Methods, Analysis, and Possible
Conclusions
Research Question Method Analysis Possible Conclusions
1. What is the relationship Correlation The LPI and the A correlation between the LPI
between the self-reported Study mentoring self- and mentoring self-assessment
exemplary leadership assessment (MSA) (MSA) survey.
practices of women protégés survey were analyzed The alternative possible outcome
as measured by the to determine the is where the research fails to
Leadership Practices relatedness of these reject the null hypotheses and
Inventory (LPI) and their measures. that no relationship exists.
perception of having
participated in successful
mentoring relationships
within the United States
Navy?
2. What is the relationship Correlation The relative rate of A correlation between the
between the perception of Study advancement within relative rate of advancement
women protégés of their the organization is within the organization and the
mentoring relationship and compared to the mentoring self-assessment
their advancement within mentoring self- (MSA) survey.
the United States Navy assessment (MSA) The alternative possible outcome
while controlling for time in survey to determine is where the research fails to
service? the relatedness. reject the null hypotheses and
that no relationship exists.
41
The measurement tools that were employed are the MSA survey and the LPI.
The relationship between the research questions, methods, analysis, and possible
conclusions is outlined in Figure 1. The specific research questions and hypotheses
that were investigated are
mentoring relationship and their advancement within the United States Navy while
42
Researcher’s Philosophy
The researcher investigated this problem through the framework of positivism.
This framework is characterized by the view that there is one, fixed reality; that this
reality is measured using quantitative methodologies; and that the most appropriate
means to describe this reality is through a systematic approach to data collection and
analysis. From within this positivist framework, a correlational study was used to
investigate the relationship between the women protégés’ perception of participation
in a successful mentoring and the self-reported exemplary leadership practices.
Theoretical Framework
relationships is a consideration. However, the resultant benefits to the organization in
the area of improved organizational performance greatly outweigh the associated
costs. Additionally, the costs incurred when an organization fails to develop these
43
women ranges from decreased attraction and retention to the legal costs of
discrimination.
Rummler and Brache (1995) describe individual, process, and organizational
levels of performance and further stated that each of these performance levels
contributes to the next higher level. Rather than each individual having to learn the
cultural, political, and technical aspects of their jobs on their own, this information is
obtained through relationships developed with other individuals.
The concept of mentoring is based on the idea of maintaining corporate
knowledge. Mentoring is examined through the framework of economic, systems, and
performance (Swanson & Holton, 2001). The functions and types of mentoring
relationships are each evaluated through this framework to develop a theoretical model
for the successful mentoring of women protégés in the United States Navy. The MSA
survey is used to measure the quality of perceptions of having participated in a
successful mentoring relationship. With leadership development as a primary
objective, mentoring is a means to achieve this objective.
commonly accepted competencies associated with successful leaders. Additionally,
2004). Although an evaluation of leadership models is beyond the scope of this study,
44
a presumption was made that engaging in these desired leadership practices, which are
valuable to the organization, results in improved performance and therefore
advancement to positions of greater authority within the organization.
eventually advance to a position of leadership. The number of women in the
organization, and the diversity of roles they are asked to perform, is increasing. Those
individuals with the greatest understanding and the greatest capacity to advance the
goals of the organization advance to positions of leadership. Similarly, leadership is
based on the idea that individuals at various levels within an organization are focused
on various aspects of maintaining and improving the business of the organization. The
Leadership Practices Inventory™ (LPI) is used in this study to assess the exemplary
leadership practices.
Research Design
The understanding of the relationship between successful mentoring
relationships and the exemplary leadership practices is important in explaining
potential areas for overall leader development among women in organizations.
Further, the relationship between successful mentoring relationships and advancement
is valuable to increasing the understanding of the quality characteristics of mentoring
relationships that are valuable. These two relationships formulate the research design.
The study aimed to generalize the results, and therefore employed a quantitative
methodology of correlational research design. Correlational research examines
relationships between variables (Gall et al., 2003; Heiman, 2001).
45
Having participated in successful mentoring relationships is defined by the
protégés perception of their past relationship experiences. The practices of exemplary
leadership are defined by the LPI. Advancement is defined as the time it takes an
individual to promote to the next level (paygrade) within the organization. These
variables were evaluated using the quantitative research process.
The quantitative research process consisted of the five-step process of
determining the research questions, determining participants, selection of methods,
selecting analysis tools, and interpretation of results (Holton & Burnett, 2005).
Swanson (1996) emphasizes the importance of determining which variables are
independent and which variables are truly dependent. Ensuring that the research
questions measure what they are designed to measure and that they measure the
dependent variable are critical starting questions in the research. This research design
involved the collection of data on two or more preexisting variables and describes the
relationship that exists between the variables. This application of research to the body
of knowledge is a major purpose of research addressed by Gall et al. (2003). Each of
these steps in the research process is further explained throughout the chapter.
An advantage of selecting the correlational research design directly aligns with
Hernez-Broome and Hughes’s (2004) contention regarding the flexibility of the
definition of desired leadership practices. The major advantages of the correlational
research design are the ability to determine the relationships between large numbers of
variables as well as to determine the degree of these relationships. The determination
that variables are related is an important result, but the inclusion of the degree of
relatedness considerably increases the usefulness of the result. This relatedness,
46
although providing no assessment of causality, does allow for a certain degree of
prediction. The prediction can be made that performance on one variable that is
correlated to another variable implies performance on the second variable (LaMar,
2004). The specific practices that are valuable to an organization, once correlated to
the Five Practices of Exemplary Leadership, measured by the LPI, would contribute
significantly to the application throughout the entire United States Navy.
Comparison of Research Designs
The literature related to the study of leadership and mentoring includes various
quantitative and qualitative methodologies, depending on the focus of the research
questions. A stated objective of the research is to generalize the results from the
sample to the population. The generalizability requirement eliminated the qualitative
options. The purpose of this study is to assess the relationship between preexisting
variables.
The correlational, experimental, and causal-comparative designs were first
evaluated against one another, and then the appropriate design is selected and
employed in evaluating the relationship between Kouzes and Posner’s (2002) LPI
characteristics and successful mentoring relationships. However, the correlational
design is most appropriate if the variables are defined as continuous, while the causal-
comparative design only addresses categorical classes of variables (Gall et al., 2003).
Jaccard and Wan (1996) stated that the use of Likert data is commonplace in statistical
procedures that assume interval data, such as Pearson’s r, which is used in this study.
47
Sampling Design
The purpose of the selection of a sample of the population is to ensure the
generalizability of the research study from the sample to the population. The selection
of participants for determining the correlation of the variables was conducted by
defining the target population as women within the United States Navy. An accessible
population was defined as leaders within specific organizations of a various sizes.
The sample used was an equal probability systematic sample with the
following characteristics: the individuals are representative of the total population, and
each individual within the population has the same opportunity to be in the target
sample during the data collection time frame. A sample of the population was selected
from the accessible population for participation in the research. Drawing a sample
from an accessible population presents a concern related to the ability to generalize the
results (Gall et al., 2003). This sample results obtained should be generalizable to the
larger United States Navy women population as the individuals within the sample are
representative of the total population.
There are two inferential leaps that must be conducted when generalizing the
results from a sample to the target population of a quantitative study. The first
inferential leap of generalizability occurs when attempting to generalize from the
sample to the accessible population (Gall et al., 2003). This inference is supported
through the selection of a random segment of the accessible population. This random
method of selection is characterized by the fact that every member of the population
has the same likelihood of being selected to attend the Center for Naval Leadership
during the data collection time frame.
48
The second inferential leap occurs when attempting to generalize from the
accessible population to the target population. Defining this parallel is limited by the
degree of similarity between the two populations (Gall et al.). Assessing the similarity
in populations is accomplished, in part, through the process of dividing the sample in
smaller, homogenous subgroups. Dividing the sample into relatively homogeneous
groups ensures face validity in evaluating the dependent variable (Gall et al.).
Dividing the sample also serves the purpose of further reducing the impact of
extraneous variables in determining the relatedness of the variables.
The sample size for the study was comprised of the number of women that
process through the United States Navy’s leadership courses during the 4-month data
collection period. The number for this time frame is 250. The individuals that
participated in the study were women that attended the United States Navy’s
Leadership Training Courses (LTC). All members of the organization must attend
these courses; therefore, the likelihood of any individual within the population being
enrolled during the data collection window was the same for each member of the
organization.
Measures
The variables included in the study were exemplary leadership practices (as
defined by the LPI), participation in successful mentoring relationships (as defined by
the MSA survey), and successful performance as defined by advancement within the
organization. Advancement is further defined as the relative time required for
individuals to move to the next higher level (paygrade). The data were collected from
49
two separate surveys, each are composed of a Likert rating scale that measured self-
reported extant data.
LPI Psychometrics
The LPI is a valid and reliable instrument. In addition to the reliability and
validity characteristics, another important factor inherent in the LPI is the consistency
of results achieved across diverse populations. The comparisons between gender, age,
culture, ethnic background, and organizational type remain consistent (Kouzes &
Posner, 2000). This is a noteworthy factor for consideration when determining the
validity and reliability of the LPI, but is of greater importance when the LPI is applied
to mentoring relationships in the highly diverse workplace.
Validity. A determination of the validity of the LPI begins with face validity.
The LPI has face validity in that it appears to measure what it claims and that the
practices it measures seems logical. The LPI, an instrument designed to assess the
characteristics of transformational leadership, has been described as having defensible
content validity, but somewhat undetermined discriminate validity. Carless (2001)
reported that the LPI measures the characteristics of the set of leadership behaviors,
but is weak in distinguishing between which of the individual skills are more critical
and which seem to be less critical. Zagorsek, Stough, and Jaklic (2006) defend the
discriminate validity of the “low levels of leadership ability, but not between
respondents with high levels of leadership abilities” (p. 186). This reported weakness
of the LPI should be considered in the selection and usage of the instrument in
meeting the objective. This possible lack of discriminate validity, however, should not
50
detract from the overall value and application of the instrument as a tool for the
evaluation of the leadership competencies as a set or the leader’s likely success in
mentoring subordinates.
Reliability. Reliability is the instruments ability to measure the factors it is
designed for. The correlational coefficients of separate measures of reliability support
the contention of overall instrument reliability. The internal reliability of each of the
LPI practices is above 0.75. Test-retest reliability remains greater than 0.90, even
though the results are subject to external factors, such as developmental activities
between successive administrations of the instrument (Kouzes & Posner, 2000).
Mentorship Self-Assessment Survey
The reliability and validity of the MSA survey were determined through field
testing. The process for field testing the instrument is described later in this chapter.
Reliability. The instrument was determined to be reliable. Stability was
determined by separate administrations of the same instrument. Reliability of the MSA
survey had a Cronbach’s alpha = 0.90.
Validity. The instrument was determined to have good face validity and high
content validity by the panel of field test participants.
Development process. Most mentoring research has relied on survey
methodology. The major elements of survey research, as stated by Bartlett (2005), are
defining the survey purpose and objectives, determining the sample, creating and
testing the instrument(s), contacting respondents, and data collection, reduction, and
analysis. The purpose of the MSA survey was to determine the level of mentoring that
51
the participant was exposed to and the quality of that exposure. The MSA survey was
designed, presented to survey construction and testing experts, and updated. The
instrument was then given to a group of non-participants that are similar to the target
sample for feedback and determination of reliability and validity.
Field Testing
The MSA survey was used evaluate the women protégés perceptions regarding
the quality of past and present mentoring relationships. The instrument was developed
and delivered to a group of non-participants. The instrument was delivered without
amplifying instruction from the researcher. The field test participants completed the
survey in accordance with the design, without any additional outside assistance.
The reliability of the MSA survey was field tested using individuals with wide-
ranging experiences to establish comparisons between exemplary performers and
average performers. The survey was administered on two separate occasions to
determine the test-retest reliability of the instrument.
The validity of the MSA survey was determined by the comparison of protégé
success, as defined by advancement, to the evaluation of skills and abilities. The
scores received by those individuals categorized as exemplary exceeded the scores
received by the less effective individuals 95% of the time.
The final step in the field testing procedure of the MSA instrument was to
collect feedback regarding the structuring of the questions. Three questions were
deleted from the instrument because of concerns of content validity. These questions
had the potential to measure different variables than was intended. Two questions
52
were rewritten to avoid possible ambiguity. The remainder of the instrument remained
intact.
Data Collection Procedures
The research incorporated quantitative methods to investigate the impact of the
mentoring relationship on leaders within the organization. The correlation between a
successful mentoring relationship and factors that contribute to this relationship is the
logical result of the initial data collection effort. Quantitative surveys were used to
collect data that were analyzed to determine the significance of the relationship. The
LPI (used with permission) and the MSA survey are the two instruments that were
used in the data collection process.
The LPI measured the exemplary leadership practices through a self-
assessment of five practices. The MSA survey addressed the areas of (a) whether
leaders throughout the organization had mentors during their career, (b) whether the
relationship had positive results, and (c) whether specific results (delineated
separately) were obtained as a result of the relationship.
The individuals that participated in the study are women that were attending
the United States Navy’s Leadership Training Courses (LTC). These courses are
mandated at specific points in the individual’s career. The timing of the various
courses is directly related to career milestones that are representative of advancing
levels of leadership. The generalization can be made that individuals attending a
certain leadership course are at a comparable level of leadership as the other
individuals within the same course. The generalization can also be made that
53
individuals attending higher level leadership courses occupy greater levels of
leadership in the organization.
All members of the organization must attend these courses; therefore, the
likelihood of any individual within the population being enrolled during the data
collection window is the same for each member of the organization. The individual
participants were contacted during their attendance at the United States Navy’s LTC.
The data were collected over a period of four months and included all women that
attend the courses during this time frame. The data were entered into a statistical
program to determine the correlation, effect size, and power for the relationships
examined.
The researcher provided participant packages to each of the learning sites
throughout the country that conduct the LTC. Each site distributed the packages to
women participants at the beginning of the course and collected the completed
packages throughout the course duration. Each learning site returned the completed
packages directly to the researcher. Each participant package consisted of (a) a
participant request, (b) a participant letter of consent, (c) the mentorship self-
assessment survey, (d) the LPI, and (e) an envelope provided to seal individual
consent forms and surveys. The researcher remained in constant contact with the
Center for Naval Leadership and monitored the process throughout. Once the data
were collected, the data analysis phase began. The onsite process for administration of
the instruments to the participants is shown in Figure 1.
54
START
COVER LETTER
RESEARCHER LETTER OF CONSENT
PROVIDES MENTORSHIP
PARTICIPANT SURVEY
PACKAGES TO SITE LPI
LEAD INSTRUCTOR(S) ENVELOPE
-STUDENTS COMPLETE
PARTICIPANT PACKAGE
-STUDENTS SEAL ALL

DOCUMENTS IN
ENVELOPE PROVIDED
-STUDENTS RETURN
SEALED ENVELOPES TO
INSTRUCTOR
CLASS INSTRUCTOR
RETURNS SEALED
ENVELOPES TO SITE
LEAD INSTRUCTOR
SITE LEAD INSTRUCTOR

SITE LEAD INSTRUCTOR RETURNS MAILER TO
ENCLOSES SEALED RESEARCHER
ENVELOPES IN MAILER
PROVIDED BY
RESEARCHER FOR
RETURN
END
A
Figure 1. Data collection process flowchart
Ethical Considerations
The major ethical considerations related to the study are the maintenance of
confidentiality of the individual participants, informed consent, and confidentiality of
data. Individual consent for participation was obtained from each individual
participant prior to data collection. The consent forms were retained by the researcher
for a period of 2 years, while the individual data collection instruments were destroyed
55
once the raw data were collected and entered into a statistical program for reduction.
Ensuring that these ethical considerations were explicitly divulged to the individual
participants helped ensure that the non-response bias was minimized to the greatest
extent possible. The reporting of all results was in the form of aggregate data with no
reference to any individual participant.
Data Analysis Procedures
The selection of the data analysis tool to be used was based on the research
questions to be answered. The correlation between the variables is only valuable to the
degree that organizations can use the information to better inform practices in the
workplace. The research questions were designed to determine the relationship
between ordinal variables. The determination of a correlation between the variables of
successful mentoring relationships and the Five Practices of Exemplary Leaders were
determined once the data is analyzed. The correlation coefficient was determined to
evaluate the relatedness among the variables. Likert scales are ordinal but their use in
statistical procedures assuming interval level data is commonplace for the reason
given below. Although the determination of the correlation coefficient assumes
interval data, with ordinal Likert scale items Jaccard and Wan (1996, p. 4) summarize,
"for many statistical tests, rather severe departures (from intervalness) do not seem to
affect Type I and Type II errors dramatically."
These relationships have the purpose of association (Holton & Burnett, 2005),
and therefore a correlation study is prescribed. The data were analyzed to determine
56
the relatedness of the variables. The statistical significance and the statistical power
were calculated and reported.
Limitations of Methodology
The major disadvantage of correlational research design is the inability to draw
any conclusions regarding the existence of a cause-and-effect from the relationship
among the variables. This inability to draw cause-and-effect conclusions results from
two significant features of the design: the uncertainty of whether one variable precedes
or follows the other, and the fact that the design does not control or eliminate
extraneous variables (Heiman, 2001). This disadvantage is acceptable based upon the
decision to examine the relatedness, not the causality, of the variables.
This study targets only women. A possible result of this focus, as is present in
other studies is non-response bias. The participants self-select to participate in the
research leaving the possibility that others elect to not participate. This concern is
addressed in detail in the methodology employed in this study.
Another shortfall of these surveys was that they fail to take into consideration
the mentoring stage of the participant (Chao, 1998). While consideration given to the
stages of the mentoring relationship will prove valuable in further research in this area,
this area is beyond the scope of this project. The time constraint of four months to
collect data was agreed upon between the researcher and the United States Navy as an
acceptable period of time.
57
Expected Findings
Two possible conclusions were anticipated in the study. First, in the case
where the null hypotheses are rejected, the relationship between the variables likely
exists. The fact that mentoring competencies and leadership practices are comparable,
and that the LPI successfully measures these practices of leadership, supports the
contention that the LPI would serve equally well as a valid, reliable assessment tool
for determining which individuals would likely succeed as mentors within
organizations. The value of the LPI as a valid assessment of a leader’s likely success
in mentoring subordinates focuses on an evaluation of the pros and cons of the
instrument.
A comparison of the competencies of a successful mentor and the Five
Practices of Exemplary Leadership assessed using the LPI reveals sizeable overlap.
The validity of the LPI as an assessment instrument, the incorporation of the concept
of developmental networking (Higgins & Kram, 2001) into mentoring, and the
comparison of leadership practices and mentorship traits supports the claim that the
LPI should be a viable instrument for use in determining the leader’s likely success
within the organization. This claim is further supported by the reliability and validity
of the instrument.
The alternative possible outcome is where the research fails to reject the null
hypotheses. This finding is that there is an absence of a relationship between the
variables. This absence of a relationship would point the recommendation for future
research in a separate, distinct direction.
58
CHAPTER 4. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between exemplary
women in the United States Navy from the perspective of the women protégé. The
present literature is incomplete in attempting to address the developmental needs of
women protégés in the workplace, especially in cases of mentoring relationships that
are across-gender. This study sought to fill some of the significant gaps in the present
literature about mentoring programs for women for application within the United
States Navy.
This chapter presents an analysis of the data collected and provides answers to
the two research questions of the study. The chapter begins with a review of the
purpose which is followed by a description of the sample and concludes with the
analysis of the results of the study. The research questions and the associated
hypotheses that were investigated were
59
60
The study investigated the relationships that exist between the perception of
having participated in successful mentoring relationships and both exemplary
leadership practices and advancement among women in the United States Navy.
Participants were asked to complete the MSA survey and the Leadership Practices
Inventory (LPI) as well as provide demographic data describing both themselves and
their organizations. The LPI measured the exemplary leadership practices through a
self-assessment of the five practices of exemplary leaders (modeling, inspiring,
challenging, enabling & encouraging). The MSA survey measured the areas of (a)
whether leaders throughout the organization had mentors during their career, (b)
whether the relationship had positive results, and (c) whether specific results
(delineated separately) were obtained as a result of the relationship. The Cronbach’s
alpha for the MSA = 0.90. The internal reliability of each of the individual LPI
practices is above 0.75 (Kouzes & Posner, 2000).
Description of Sample
The purpose of the selection of a sample of the population is to ensure the
generalizability of the research study from the sample to the population. The selection
of participants for determining the correlation of the variables was conducted by
defining the target population as women within the United States Navy. An accessible
population was defined as leaders within specific organizations of a various sizes.
The sample used was an equal probability systematic sample with the
following characteristics: the individuals are representative of the total population, and
each individual within the population has the same opportunity to be in the target
61
sample during the data collection time frame. A sample of the population was selected
from the accessible population for participation in the research. The sample size for
the study was comprised of the number of women that process through the United
States Navy’s leadership courses during the 4-month data collection period. The
number of participants for this time frame was 251 out of the total of 287 women that
were available during this study. This represents a response rate of 87.4%. The
individuals that participated in the study were women that attended the United States
Navy’s Leadership Training Courses (LTC). All members of the organization must
attend these courses; therefore, the likelihood of any individual within the population
being enrolled during the data collection window was the same for each member of
the organization.
Power Analysis
An a-priori power analysis was conducted to determine the number of
participants required to detect a medium effect size (r = .30) with power = .80 for a
two-tailed bivariate Pearson correlation tested at α = .05. The power analysis
suggested that at least 84 individuals were needed to achieve a power of .80. The
power analysis was conducted with the statistical software G*Power 3.0.8.
Descriptive Statistics
Two hundred fifty-one individuals participated in the study. The descriptive
statistics for the participants’ demographics are listed in Table 3. The average
participant was 28.61 (SD = 5.43) years of age and had served for 8.00 (SD = 4.14)
62
years. The participants answered several questions about the organization in which
they work. The frequencies and percentages for the participants’ responses are listed in
Table 4. The participants were employed at organizations that varied in size from less
than 50 employees to organizations with over 500 employees. Most (157, 62.8%) of
the organizations had some sort of formal mentoring program. A majority (192,
77.1%) of the participants reported that their mentors were women. Forty-one (16.9%)
of the participants indicated that their mentor was located outside the US Navy, and
202 (83.1%) stated their mentor was within the US Navy. A large majority (200,
84.0%) of the individuals revealed that their mentor assists them with both
professional and personal issues.
Table 3
Descriptive Statistics for the Participants’ Demographics
Variable N Min. Max. M SD
Paygrade 251 4 7 5.37 0.84
Age 249 18 45 28.61 5.43
Length of Service 251 0.75 22.50 8.00 4.14
63
Table 4
Descriptive Statistics for the Participants’ Organization Variables
Variable n %
Number of Employees
Less than 50 52 20.8
50 – 100 43 17.2
101 – 500 83 33.2
501 or More 72 28.8
Type of Mentoring Program
Formal 23 9.2
Informal 51 20.4
Both Formal & Informal 134 53.6
None 42 16.8
Mentor Location
Within US Navy 202 83.1
Outside US Navy 41 16.9
Mentor Help With
Personal 4 1.7
Professional 34 14.3
Both Personal & Professional 200 84.0
64
There are two inferential leaps that must be conducted when generalizing the
results from a sample to the target population of a quantitative study. The first
inferential leap of generalizability occurs when attempting to generalize from the
sample to the accessible population (Gall et al., 2003). This inference is supported
through the selection of a random segment of the accessible population. This random
method of selection is characterized by the fact that every member of the population
has the same likelihood of being selected to attend the Center for Naval Leadership
during the data collection time frame. The resulting descriptive statistics support this
inferential leap when comparing the description of the sample to the population. This
sample results obtained should be generalizable to the larger United States Navy
women population as the individuals within the sample are representative of the total
population.
The second inferential leap occurs when attempting to generalize from the
accessible population to the target population. Defining this parallel is limited by the
degree of similarity between the two populations (Gall et al., 2003). The demographic
data collected from the sample is representative of the demographics of the target
population. Assessing the similarity in populations was accomplished, in part, through
the process of assessing face validity in evaluating the dependent variable (Gall et al.).
65
Results
Descriptive Statistics
This section is divided by the major categories of descriptive statistics and
analysis of data by each hypothesis. The statistical results were calculated using SPSS
software. The 251 participants responded to both the Mentorship Self-Assessment
(MSA) Survey and the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI). The descriptive statistics
for the participants’ responses to both the MSA and the LPI are listed in Appendices D
and E respectively. The descriptive statistics from the MSA survey (where a 5-point
Likert scale was used where 5 represented strongly agree and 1 represented strongly
disagree) that showed the most positive results are listed in Table 5.
Table 5
MSA Most Positive Results
Item Mean SD
My mentor(s) is (are) experienced in their field. 4.24 0.96
There is benefit to the mentor for sharing his/her knowledge. 4.15 0.97
My mentor(s) is (are) patient. 4.14 0.98
My mentor(s) provides appropriate feedback for my efforts. 4.08 0.98
My mentor(s) specifically encourages me to participate in 4.02 1.03
professional development opportunities.
My mentor helps me define and achieve career goals. 4.00 1.07
66
These specific areas appear to focus on the description of the characteristics of the
mentor, as well as the qualities that are present in the relationship between the mentor
and the protégé.
The descriptive statistics from the MSA survey that showed the least positive
results are listed in Table 6.
Table 6
MSA Least Positive Results
Item Mean SD
There are NO penalties for applying knowledge/skills in the
workplace. 3.02 1.25
Protégés prosper within my organization because of the
mentoring relationship. 3.13 0.97
My organization is more effective as a result of the
mentoring program. 3.00 1.04
These specific areas appear to focus solely on organizational characteristics, vice the
characteristics of the individuals or their relationship. These results provide guidance
for further research that will be addressed in chapter 5 regarding the mentor, the
relationship, and the organization.
The leadership practices that were scored the lowest on the LPI (a 10-point
Likert scale was used where 10 represented always and 1 represented never are listed
in Table 7.
67
Table 7
LPI Least Positive Results
Item Mean SD
I talk about future trends that will influence how our
work gets done. 7.22 1.83
I describe a compelling image of what our future could
be like. 6.37 2.35
I search outside the formal boundaries of my
organization for innovative ways to improve what we
do. 6.93 2.22
I appeal to others to share an exciting dream of the
future. 6.40 2.50
I ask “What can we learn?” when things do not go as
expected. 7.23 2.15
I show others how their long-term interests can be
realized by enlisting in a common vision. 6.78 2.18
I experiment and take risks even when there is a chance
of failure. 6.90 2.13
Each of these leadership practices rated as low is contained in either the modeling or
inspiring subscale of the LPI. Descriptive statistics were also calculated for each of the
overall five subscales of the LPI (modeling, inspiring, challenging, enabling &
encouraging). The descriptive statistics for these responses are listed in Table 8. These
lower results are apparent in the overall subscale scores.
68
Table 8
Descriptive Statistics for LPI Subscales
Variable N Min. Max. M SD
Modeling 247 2.33 10.00 7.39 1.45
Inspiring 247 2.83 10.00 7.00 1.62
Challenging 247 3.50 10.00 8.21 1.01
Enabling 247 4.00 10.00 8.23 1.14
Encouraging 247 2.17 10.00 8.03 1.34
Research Question 1
The first research question addressed in the study was: “What is the
relationship between the self-reported exemplary leadership practices of women
protégés as measured by the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) and their perception
of having participated in successful mentoring relationships within the United States
Navy?” The null hypothesis stated that there is no relationship between the self-
successful mentoring relationships within the United States Navy. There was a
significant relationship between the self-reported exemplary leadership practices of
women protégés as measured by the LPI and their perception of having participated in
successful mentoring relationships within the United States Navy, and thus the null
hypothesis is rejected.
69
There were a large number of areas showing the significance of the correlation
between the individual items contained in the MSA survey and the LPI. The individual
item correlation matrix is presented in Appendix F. The information points to several
specific areas that have the greatest relationship between variables. This information,
which is valuable to provide a targeted understanding of the overall relationship for
the purpose of developing improvement interventions, is evaluated in addition to the
overall MSA assessment. The MSA variables that had the greatest number of
significant occurrences when compared to specific LPI traits were
1. There is benefit to the mentor for sharing his/her knowledge.
2. The results that I receive through the mentoring relationship help me to
contribute to the organization.
3. Mentors meet my expectations as a protégé.
4. There are rewards for applying knowledge/skills in the workplace.
5. My mentor(s) and supervisor collaborate to assist in my development.
The significance of the relationship between the quality of the mentor-protégé
relationship and the practices of exemplary leaders occurs more frequently than the
significance that the individual organization has on the relationship and the practices
of exemplary leaders. This additional finding will be addressed in recommendations
for further research.
Several bivariate Pearson correlations were calculated to determine if there
was a significant relationship between the overall perception of the mentor/protégé
relationship (overall composite of the Mentorship Self-Assessment Survey items) and
the 5 subscales of the LPI (modeling, inspiring, challenging, enabling & encouraging).
70
The overall correlation matrix is presented in Table 9. The correlations revealed
significant positive relationships among all the variables.
Table 9
Overall Bivariate Pearson Correlations for Research Question 1
1 2 3 4 5 6
Overall MSA (1) --- .26** .31** .27** .34** .28**
Modeling (2) --- .80** .68** .73** .77**
Inspiring (3) --- .64** .68** .71**
Challenging (4) --- .74** .74**
Enabling (5) --- .70**
Encouraging (6) ---
Note. *p < .05, **p < .01
The correlations between each of the LPI subscales were anticipated, and
support the extant data available about the instrument. The data related to the first
research question is the correlation between the MSA and each of the LPI subscales.
Each of the correlations were significant at the p<.05 and p<.01 levels. The resulting
Pearson Correlations allow for the rejection of the null hypothesis. The implications of
these results will be discussed in chapter 5.
71
Research Question 2
The second research question answered in the study was “What is the
relationship between the perception of women protégés of their mentoring relationship
and their advancement within the United States Navy while controlling for time in
service?” There was a relationship between the perception of women protégés of their
controlling for time in service.
The 251 participants answered the MSA survey, the LPI, and questions relating
to paygrade and length of service. Although there is demographic data describing the
average length of service for each paygrade, no data exists to measure the average
time an individual has served in a particular paygrade. In order to account for this
undefined distribution, the variable of time in service was controlled for in conducting
the data analysis.
The second null hypothesis stated that there is no relationship between the
within the United States Navy while controlling for time in service. A partial
correlation was calculated to determine if there was a significant relationship between
paygrade and perceptions of the mentor/protégé relationship after controlling for
length of service. The correlation revealed a significant relationship among the two
variables after controlling for length of services, r = .15, p < .05. The resulting Pearson
Correlations allow for the rejection of the null hypothesis. This indicates that
perceptions of the mentor/protégé relationship increased with increasing paygrade
levels after controlling for length of service.
72
Summary
This chapter provided an analysis of the data collected to examine the
relationship between exemplary leadership practices, successful mentoring
relationships, and advancement among women in the United States Navy from the
perspective of the women protégé. The results of the data analysis conducted allowed
for the rejection of the null hypotheses. This leads to accepting the hypotheses that (a)
there is a relationship between the self-reported exemplary leadership practices of
women protégés as measured by the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) and their
perception of having participated in successful mentoring relationships within the
United States Navy, and (b) there is a relationship between the perception of women
protégés of their mentoring relationship and their advancement within the United
States Navy while controlling for time in service.
The results of the analysis of the first hypothesis showed a positive relationship
between the self-reported exemplary leadership practices of women protégés as
measured by the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) and their perception of having
participated in successful mentoring relationships within the United States Navy. The
results of the analysis of the second hypothesis showed a positive relationship between
advancement within the United States Navy while controlling for time in service. The
conclusions and recommendations from these results are discussed in chapter 5.
73
CHAPTER 5. RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This research was conducted to determine the relationship between mentoring
of women in the U. S. Navy to their leadership and advancement within the
organization. This chapter is organized to provide the summary results, conclusions,
and recommendations for further study. The results are provided from the data
analysis conducted in chapter 4. These results incorporate an assessment of the
literature, the methodology used, and the limitations to answer the research questions.
Conclusions from these results describe the relation to current literature and the field
of study. Finally, recommendations for further study are presented drawn from the
data, limitations, and delimitations of the study.
Background
74
the leadership needs of the United States Navy. The specific research questions that
were investigated to address the problem were
practices of women protégés as measured by the Leadership Practices
Inventory (LPI) and their perception of having participated in successful
mentoring relationships within the United States Navy?”
mentoring relationship and their advancement within the United States
Navy, while controlling for time in service?”
There are three reasons why this study is significant. First, women are playing
an increasingly important and diverse role within the United States Navy. Second,
there are a limited number of women in senior positions to serve in the role of mentor.
The third, and the most significant reason for conducting this study, is that it will help
the United States Navy achieve better organizational performance through the
incorporation of successful mentoring programs for women within the organization.
75
Individual performance contributes to organizational performance. The United
States Navy rewards individual performance by advancing individuals through its
promotion system. The study explores the issues surrounding the roles of the mentor
and protégé as well as the value of the relationship to the organization. Determining
the relationship between advancement, leadership practices, and mentoring
participation will assist in developing a mentorship model for application to women
protégés in the United States Navy.
The percentage of women in the workplace continues to rise steadily (Killan et
al., 2005). As organizations attempt to target this increasing talent pool, their ability to
hire and retain women will be dependent upon the ability of the organization to meet
the specific developmental needs of these women. The organization that is successful
in developing this growing portion of the workforce will have achieved a great
advantage in the pursuit in attracting and retaining talented individuals, and thus
furthering their organizational objectives.
76
the leadership needs of the United States Navy.
Research has suggested that we might better understand successful mentoring
programs by taking into account the special circumstances presented by relationships
that consider gender (Bierema, 1999; Ragins, 1997) and the relative standing of the
mentor/protégé (Chao, Walz, & Gardner, 1992). While gender differences are
addressed as requiring unique approaches, research targeting the developmental needs
of women in the United States Navy, specifically relationships comprised of women
protégés, is scarce. Although mentoring has been a part of the United States Navy’s
effort to develop the leaders of the future, the focus of mentoring on the leadership
development of women in the organization has not been previously examined. The
assessment of the connection between mentoring relationships and the exemplary
leadership practices will serve both the individual women protégé as well as the
United States Navy as an organization.
The characteristics of a successful mentoring relationship are defined as the
degree to which the protégé describes the value of the career and psychosocial support
provided by the mentor. D’Abate et al. (2003) described the career and psychosocial
competencies of directing, tutoring, coaching, modeling, teaching, problem solving,
providing practical application, providing feedback, sharing information, affirming,
confidence building, encouraging, counseling, advocating, introducing, sheltering, and
socializing that are achieved through these mentoring activities. Chao (1998) included
77
the additional competencies of organizational leverage, personal growth, emotional
support, and guidance as tasks performed by the mentor.
The gap in the research related to across-gender relationships, which is typical
in an organization like the United States Navy where males are predominantly in
senior positions, prompted the need to examine the specific characteristics of
mentoring relationships involving women protégés within the framework of leadership
development. This study seeks to fill some of the significant gaps in the present
literature by providing a framework that addresses the specific mentoring needs of
women. This framework is based on an examination of the relationship between
exemplary leadership practices, successful mentoring relationships, and advancement
among women in the United States Navy. Specifically addressing the relationship
between leadership development and mentoring among women in the United States
Navy has resulted in a different perspective on the established shortcoming of
mentoring women. The literature further suggested that for mentoring to be most
effective for women protégés, specific considerations regarding the nature of the
relationship needed to be made. The benefits of the relationship must be weighed
against the potential barriers to performance and development of the protégé.
The literature related to the study of leadership and mentoring includes various
quantitative and qualitative methodologies, depending on the focus of the research
questions. A stated objective of the research is to generalize the results from the
sample to the population. The generalizability requirement eliminated the qualitative
options. The purpose of this study is to assess the relationship between preexisting
variables.
78
The study was a quantitative study examining the relationship between the
variables of exemplary leadership practices and successful mentoring relationships.
The research suggests that mentoring is one way that organizations address their
leadership development needs. The ability to assess the relationship between the
variables of exemplary leadership practices and advancement with successful
mentoring relationships will allow the organization to reasonably predict performance
of one variable based upon performance on another (LaMar, 2004).
The quantitative research process consisted of the five-step process of
determining the research questions, determining participants, selection of methods,
selecting analysis tools, and interpretation of results (Holton & Burnett, 2005).
Swanson (1996) emphasizes the importance of determining which variables are
independent and which variables are truly dependent. Ensuring that the research
questions measure what they are designed to measure and that they measure the
dependent variable are critical starting questions in the research. This research design
involved the collection of data on two or more preexisting variables and describes the
relationship that exists between the variables. This application of research to the body
of knowledge is a major purpose of research addressed by Gall et al. (2003).
The correlational, experimental, and causal-comparative designs were first
evaluated against one another, and then the appropriate design is selected and
employed in evaluating the relationship between Kouzes and Posner’s (2002) LPI
characteristics and successful mentoring relationships. However, the correlational
design is most appropriate if the variables are defined as continuous, while the causal-
comparative design only addresses categorical classes of variables (Gall et al., 2003).
79
Jaccard and Wan (1996) stated that the use of Likert data is commonplace in statistical
procedures that assume interval data, such as Pearson’s r, which is used in this study.
The major advantages of the correlational research design are the ability to
determine the relationships between large numbers of variables as well as to determine
the degree of these relationships. The determination that variables are related is an
important result, but the inclusion of the degree of relatedness considerably increases
the usefulness of the result. This relatedness, although providing no assessment of
causality, does allow for a certain degree of prediction. The prediction can be made
that performance on one variable that is correlated to another variable implies
performance on the second variable (LaMar, 2004).
Results
Research Question 1
The first hypothesis states “there is a relationship between the self-reported
exemplary leadership practices of women protégés as measured by the Leadership
Practices Inventory (LPI) and their perception of having participated in successful
mentoring relationships within the United States Navy.” In addressing this hypothesis,
the null hypothesis is stated “there is no relationship between the self-reported
exemplary leadership practices of women protégés as measured by the Leadership
Practices Inventory (LPI) and their perception of having participated in successful
mentoring relationships within the United States Navy.” This null hypothesis was
rejected and the hypothesis was accepted.
80
The relationship between mentoring and leadership is significant at the p < .01
level, where r ranges from .26 to .34. Relationships between individual MSA
instrument items were evaluated beyond the overall MSA score to target the areas that
produced the greatest correlation coefficients. These specific items are also included in
recommendations for further research.
The literature addresses the differences that are present between same-gender
and across-gender mentoring relationships. This research validates that finding and
provides recommendations for further research. The additional insight provided by this
research will guide the organization toward developing these successful mentoring
relationships among women protégés to further organizational goals and improve
individual and organizational performance.
An additional point of interest was the relationship between the mentoring
pairs that were same gender as compared to across-gender mentor/protégé pairs. There
was no overall significant difference between these two types of relationships.
However, the difference between these two types of mentoring relationships was
significant in two specific areas. Same gender relationships had considerably more
positive responses to the statements “There are rewards for applying knowledge/skills
in the workplace,” and “I am contagiously enthusiastic and positive about future
possibilities.” The relationship between each of these two specific areas in same
gender mentor/protégé relationships was significant. These areas are also included in
recommendations for further study.
81
Research Question 2
The second hypothesis states “there is a relationship between the perception of
women protégés of their mentoring relationship and their advancement within the
United States Navy while controlling for time in service.” In addressing this
hypothesis, the second null hypothesis is stated “there is no relationship between the
within the United States Navy while controlling for time in service.” The relationship
between paygrade and perception of having participated in a successful mentoring
relationship, while controlling for time in service was significant. This allowed for the
rejection of the null hypothesis and the acceptance of the hypothesis.
A partial correlation was calculated to determine if there was a significant
relationship between paygrade and perceptions of the mentor/protégé relationship after
controlling for length of service. The variability in time in service within individual
paygrades was controlled to examine the relationship between the variables. The
correlation revealed a significant positive relationship between the two variables after
controlling for length of services, r = .15, p < .05. This allowed for the rejection of the
null hypothesis. This indicates that perceptions of the mentor/protégé relationship
increased with increasing paygrade levels after controlling for length of service.
The literature is widespread describing the “glass ceiling” that women have
encountered in the workforce and particularly in the military. This study shows the
significant relationship between having participated in a successful mentoring
relationship and advancement among women protégés in the U. S. Navy. The
82
organization’s ability to reinforce the value of establishing and maintaining these
mentoring relationships will assist in breaking through the “glass ceiling.”
The correlational study does not define a cause-effect relationship between the
variables, but clearly states that the relationship exists. This result shows that as
paygrade improves, women’s perception that they have participated in a successful
mentoring relationship also improves. The practical importance of this relationship is
important to the organization because knowing which variable causes the other is of
little value as long as advancement and improved perception regarding mentoring
relationships both increase.
Conclusions
The results of the study point to the statement that there exists a relationship
between exhibiting exemplary leadership practices and having participated in
successful mentoring relationships among women in the U. S. Navy. The results
further indicate that a relationship also exists between having participated in a
successful mentoring relationship and advancement among women within the U. S.
Navy. These relationships are valuable in relation to both the current literature and the
field of performance improvement.
The current literature describes differences between mentoring relationships
that are comprised of women protégés. These differences are detailed further based
upon whether the mentor is of the same or different gender than the protégé. The
results of the study are supportive of the literature and further validate that not only do
these differences attributed to women protégés exist, but that in addition to relating to
83
the gender of the protégé, that they are further defined by the characteristics of the
mentoring relationship.
The study will assist the organization in the decision making process related to
the establishment and maintenance of mentoring programs for women protégés in the
areas of leadership development and advancement. These decisions will help form the
basis for addressing the research problem that women in the United States Navy are
not advancing and are therefore not filling the leadership needs of the United States
Navy.
The value of these results to the organization lies in the area of future
mentoring program design and implementation. Targeted objectives of the mentoring
relationship can be stated more specifically based upon the specific leadership practice
that is desired outcome of the intervention. An additional value to the organization is
the ability to provide the systemic approach necessary for the development of a
successful mentoring relationship that addresses the specific needs, strengths, and
limitations of the mentor and protégé; as well as the specific concerns that occur as a
result of the gender of the participants.
Limitations
The following limitations in the conduct of the study are acknowledged as part
of the study and are addressed individually.
1. Non-response bias may result due to the voluntary participation in the
survey.
84
2. The employment of statistical methods with Likert scale data, although
commonly employed, has critics.
3. The instruments used in the study collect data that is self-reported. This
limitation is related to the assumption that the respondents are both candid
and honest in their responses.
4. The generalizability of the results might be limited to military organizations.
5. The study is conducted as a snapshot in time vice a longitudinal study.
6. This study targets only women.
The study focused exclusively on mentoring relationships that consisted of
women protégés. A possible result of this focus, as is present in other studies, is non-
response bias. The participants self-select to participate in the research leaving the
possibility that others elect to not participate. This concern is addressed in detail in the
methodology employed in this study. The limitation associated with non-response bias
is acceptable based on the fact that all efforts were made to encourage participation
and ensure confidentiality of participant information.
The study is limited in its methodology to the collection and analysis of self-
reported data. The limitation associated with the collection and analysis of self-
reported data would be remedied in future research through the employment of a 360-
degree type assessment instrument to minimize the bias effect of collecting self-
reported data. Further study in this area should include other available LPI levels of
assessment as well as mentoring survey data collected from supervisors, peers, and
direct reports. Expanding the data collection process would provide a broader view of
85
the pertinent aspects of the relationship between exemplary leadership practices and
mentoring.
Generalizability of results and the fact that the study was conducted as a
snapshot, vice a longitudinal study are important considerations for further research.
This research can lead to similar assessments conducted outside the U. S. Navy
environment or follow up assessments targeting the same population to investigate the
same research questions longitudinally.
Targeting women protégé also provides results that are limited in scope. This
study can be expanded in the future to target different populations. The difference
between same gender and across-gender mentoring relationships was significant in
two specific areas. Same gender relationships had considerably more positive
responses to the statements “There are rewards for applying knowledge/skills in the
workplace,” and “I am contagiously enthusiastic and positive about future
possibilities.” The relationship between these two areas in same gender
mentor/protégé relationships was significant. Further investigation into the reasons
behind these specific areas warrants further study.
Recommendations for Further Study
The evaluation of the relationship between mentoring and both leadership
practices and advancement among women protégés in this study provides insight and
guidance for further study. Further study along the lines of this study, as well as in
areas directly related to this study is prescribed. The recommendations for further
research are addressed with regard to whether they were derived from the research
86
data, methodology, limitations, delimitations, and areas not supported by the research
data but relevant to the research problem.
The research data from this study provides a framework to expand the current
knowledge in the area of development of individuals through mentoring programs and
processes. The relationship between mentoring and leadership is significant. The areas
of mentoring that were addressed as having the strongest relationship with exemplary
leadership practices should be evaluated further with the objective of determining the
specific impact of each area in the further development of these leadership practices.
The research data also provides the specific differences between relationships between
same-gender and across-gender relationships. Further study targeting across-gender
relationships is needed to validate the characteristics that are most important in the
success of these relationships.
The area where there was a significant difference between the same- and
across-gender relationships also requires further study. Same gender relationships had
considerably more positive responses to the statements “There are rewards for
applying knowledge/skills in the workplace,” and “I am contagiously enthusiastic and
positive about future possibilities” than did across-gender relationships. The
relationship between these two specific areas in same gender mentor/protégé
relationships was also significant.
The research data also shows a relationship between having participated in a
successful mentoring relationship and advancement. This data should be further
studied to determine a possible cause-effect relationship between these two variables.
Additionally, further study should be conducted to address the impact of the
87
characteristics of the organization on the practices of exemplary leadership and the
perception of having participated in a successful mentoring relationship. The study
further validates the literature in the field by concluding that there are different factors
that must be considered based upon the nature of the mentor-protégé relationship.
The methodology employed in this study lends itself to the recommendation
for further study that would include 360-degree type assessment instruments. The LPI
instruments are available for this use. The MSA would need to be modified slightly to
include feedback from peers, seniors, and direct reports. The study was purposely
delimited to examine only women protégés. Further study in across-gender mentoring
relationships should include male protégés. A major area that was outside of the
confines of this study, but related to the research in the field includes expanding the
research in this area to organizations outside of the United States Navy as this
particular population likely has different characteristics than other organizations.
The results presented, and the recommendations for further study, lead
organizations toward furthering their efforts in the area of developing their entire
talent pool. The future success of the organization will be more likely as a result of the
ability to ensure the development of each individual to meet the continually changing
workplace landscape.
Specific performance improvement interventions that are the natural product of
the research include training at all levels of the organization, support for mentors and
protégés, and change management efforts to close the protégé performance gap
between same-gender and across-gender relationships. Training is the first step in any
change management effort that requires individual performers to conduct themselves
88
differently. The training should focus on both the process of mentoring and the desired
role of each individual involved. Organizational support is also a crucial component of
implementing a mentoring intervention. The research further validates the need to
identify the desired outcomes of the intervention prior to implementation.
The relationships between having participated in a successful mentoring
relationship with advancement and exemplary leadership practices support making the
investment in mentoring solutions for women protégés in the workforce. Meeting the
needs of the organization of the future will require the greatest contributions from each
member of the organizational team. The improved performance of the individual and
the organization that results from the mentoring interventions has a great potential for
return on investment. The economic, technological, and innovation challenges that
face organizations today will likely continue indefinitely. Meeting these challenges
head-on requires that organizations develop, employ, and continually improve the
performance of each member of their workforce to the greatest extent possible.
89
REFERENCES
Arnaud, C. (2003). A coach or a couch? A lacanian perspective on executive coaching

and consulting. Human Relations, 56, 1131-1154.
Bartlett, K. R. (2005). Survey research in organizations. In R. A. Swanson, & E. F.

Holton (Eds.), Research in organizations: Foundations and methods of inquiry
(pp. 29-44). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Bassi, L. J., Benson, G., & Cheney, S. (1996). The top ten trends. Training &
Development, 50(11), 28-42.
Bierema, L. L. (1999). Invited reaction: Setting the stage for further study of
developmental relationships. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 10,
221-224.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing Organizations: Artistry, choice and
leadership (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Carless, S. A. (2001). Assessing the discriminant validity of the leadership practices

inventory. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 233-
239.
Chao, G. T. (1998). Invited reaction: Challenging research in mentoring. Human

Resource Development Quarterly, 9, 333-338.
Chao, G. T., Walz, P. M., & Gardner, P. D. (1992). Formal and informal mentorships:
A comparison on mentoring functions and contrast with nonmentored
counterparts. Personnel Psychology, 45, 619-636.
D’Abate, C. P., Eddy, E. R., & Tannenbaum, S. I. (2003). What’s in a name: A

literature-based approach to understanding mentoring, coaching, and other
constructs that describe developmental interactions. Human Resource
Development Review, 2, 360-384.
Darling, N., Bogat, G. A., Cavell, T. A., Murphy, S. E., & Sanchez, B. (2006).
Gender, ethnicity, development, and risk: Mentoring and the consideration of
individual differences. Journal of Community Psychology, 34(6), 765-779.
David, D., Szentagotai, A., Eva, K., & Macavei, B. (2005). A synopsis of rational-
emotive behavior therapy (REBT); fundamental and applied research. Journal
of Rational – Emotive & Cognitive – Behavior Therapy, 23(3), 175-221.
de Janasz, S. C., Sullivan, S. E., & Whiting, V. (2003). Mentoring networks and career
success: Lessons for turbulent times. Academy of Management Executive,
17(4), 78-91.
90
Donaldson, S. I., Ensher, E. A., & Grant-Vallone, E. J. (2000). Longitudinal
examination of mentoring relationships on organizational commitment and
citizen behavior. Journal of Career Development, 26(4), 233-249.
Douglas, C. A., & McCauly, C. D. (1999). Formal developmental relationships: A

survey of organizational practices. Human Resource Development Quarterly,
10, 203-218.
Dutton, C. (2003). Mentoring: The contextualisation of learning – mentor, protégé,

and organisational gain in higher education. Education & Training, 45, 22-29.
Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003). Educational research: An introduction
(7th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Gibson, S. K. (2004). Being mentored: The experience of women faculty. Journal of

Career Development, 30, 173-188.
Giscombe, K. (2007). Advancing women through the glass ceiling with formal
mentoring. In B. R. Ragins, & K. E. Kram (Eds.), The handbook of mentoring
at work: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 549-571). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Heinman, G. W. (2001). Understanding research methods and statistics: An integrated

introduction for psychology (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Hernez-Broome, G., & Hughes, R. L. (2004). Leadership development: Past, present,

and future. Human Resource Planning, 27(1), 24-32.
Higgins, M. C., & Kram, K. E. (2001). Reconceptualizing mentoring at work: A

developmental network perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 26,
264-288.
Hill, S. K., & Bahniuk, M. H. (1998). Promoting career success through mentoring.
Review of Business, 19(3), 4-7.
Holton, E. F., & Burnett, M. F. (2005). The basics of quantitative research. In R. A.

Swanson, & E. F. Holton (Eds.), Research in organizations: Foundations and
methods of inquiry (pp. 29-44). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Hurley, A. E. (1996). Challenges in cross-gender mentoring relationships:

Psychological intimacy, myths, rumours, innuendos, and sexual harassment.
Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 17, 42-52.
Jaccard, J. & Wan, C. K. (1996). Lisrel approaches to interaction effects in multiple

regression. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
91
Johnson, W. B., Huwe, J. M., & Lucas, J. L. (2000). Rational Mentoring. Journal of
Rational – Emotive & Cognitive – Behavior Therapy, 18(1), 39-54.
Keele, R. L., Buckner, K., & Bushnell, S. J. (1987). Formal mentoring programs are
no panacea. Management Review, 76(2), 67-68.
Killan, C. M., Hukai, D., & McCarty, C. E. (2005). Building diversity in the pipeline
to corporate leadership. The Journal of Management Development, 24(2), 155-
168.
Knouse, S. B., & Webb, S. C. (2000). Unique types of mentoring for diverse groups in
the military. Review of Business, 21, 48-55.
Kottke, J. L., & Agars, M. D. (2005). Understanding the processes that facilitate and
hinder efforts to advance women in organizations. Career Development
International, 10(3), 190-202.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2000). The leadership challenge: Research by the
authors. Retrieved October 10, 2006 from
http://www.leadershipchallenge.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-131362.html
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2002). The leadership challenge (3rd ed.). San
Francisco: Josey-Bass.
LaMar, Y. L. (2004). Correlational research designs. Retrieved October 10, 2006,

from http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/tutorial/Lamar/ylamar.htm
LeVesque, L. L., O’Neill, R. M., Nelson, T., & Dumas, C. (2005). Sex difference in
the perceived importance of mentoring functions. Career Development
International, 10(6/7), 429-584.
Levin, L. A. & Mattis, M. (2006) Corporate academic responses to gender diversity.

Equal Opportunities International, 25, 60-70.
Maxwell, J. C. (1998). The 21 irrefutable laws of leadership: Follow them and people
will follow you. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.
McCollum, B. (1999). Leadership development and self-development: An empirical

study. [Electronic version]. Career Development International, 4(3), 149-154.
Retrieved August 21, 2007 from http://proquest.umi.com.library.capella.edu/
pqdweb?did=86921039&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=62763&RQT=309&VName
=PQD
Murphy, S. A. (2006). Executive development and succession planning: Qualitative

evidence. International Journal of Police Science and Management, 8(4), 253-
265.
92
Navy Personnel Command. (2007). Office of women’s policy. Retrieved October 7,
2007 from http://www.npc.navy.mil/AboutUs/BUPERS/WomensPolicy/
O’Neill, R. M. (2005). An examination of organizational predictors of mentoring

functions. Journal of Managerial Issues, 17(4), 439-461.
Ragins, B. R. (1997). Diversified mentoring relationships in organizations: A power

perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 22(2), pp. 482-521.
Ragins, B. R. (1997). Diversified mentoring relationships in organizations: A power

perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 22(2), pp. 482-521.
Ragins, B. R., Cotton, J. L., & Miller, J. S. (2000). Marginal mentoring: The effects of
type of mentor, quality of relationship, and program design on work and career
attitudes. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 1177-1194.
Ralph, E. G. (2004). Developing managers’ effectiveness: A model with potential.

Journal of Management Inquiry, 13, 152-163.
Rossett, A. (1999a). First things fast: A handbook for performance analysis. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.
Rummler, G. A., & Brache, A. P. (1995). Improving performance: How to manage the
white space in the organization chart (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass/Pfeiffer.
Scandura, T. A., & Williams, E. A. (2001). An investigation of the moderating effects

of gender on the relationships between mentoring initiation and protégé
perceptions of mentoring functions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 342-
363.
Scandura, T. A., & Williams, E. A. (2004). Mentoring and transformational

leadership: The role of supervisory career mentoring. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 65, 448-468.
Sosik, J. L., & Lee, D. L. (2002). Mentoring in organizations: A social judgment

perspective for developing tomorrow’s leaders. Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies, 8(4), 17-32.
Stead, V. (2005). Mentoring: A model for leadership development? International

Journal of Training and Development, 9(3), 170-184.
Swanson, R. A. (1994). Analysis for improving performance: Tools for diagnosing

organizations and documenting workplace expertise. San Francisco: Berrett-
Koehler.
93
Swanson, R. A. (1995). Human resource development: Performance is the key.
Human Resource Development Quarterly, 6, 207-213.
Swanson, R. A. (1996). In praise of the dependent variable. Human Resource

Development Quarterly, 7, 203-207.
Swanson, R. A. (2001). Human resource development and its underlying theory.

Human Resource Development International, 4, 299-312.
Swanson, R. A., & Holton, E. F. (2001). Foundations of human resource development.

San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Tourigny, L. (2005). A critical examination of formal and informal mentoring among

nurses. Health Care Manager, 24, 68-69.
VanDerLinden, K. E. (2005). Learning to play the game: Professional development

and mentoring. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 29,
729-743.
Walpole, M. (October, 2000). Under construction: Identity and isomorphism in the

merger of a library and information science school and an education school.
The Library Quarterly, 704(4), 423-445.
Young, A. M., & Perrewe, P. L. (2000). The exchange relationships between mentors
and protégés: The development framework. Human Resources Management
Review, 10(2), 177-209.
Young, A. M., Cady, S., & Foxon, M. J. (2006). Demystifying gender differences in
mentoring: Theoretical perspectives and challenges for future research on
gender and mentoring. Human Resources Development Review, 5, 148-175.
Zagorsek, H., Stough, S. J., & Jaklic, M. (2006). Analysis of the reliability of the
leadership practices inventory in the item response framework. International
Journal of Selection and Assessment, 14, 180-191.
Zielinski, D. (2006). Best and Brightest. Training, 43(1), 11-16.
94
APPENDIX A. MENTORSHIP SELF-ASSESSMENT SURVEY
Mentorship Survey
Introduction
The following survey is designed to measure the impact that mentoring
programs have on the professional and personal development of the workforce within
the United States Navy. The target population for completing this survey is individual
women protégés within the United States Navy that have participated in formal or
informal mentoring programs. The targeted evaluation questions that are addressed in
the survey are:
Are the results of the organization’s mentoring program meeting the needs of the
organization, and what are the rewards and cost of applying the knowledge and skills
in the workplace?
Directions: This survey should take 10 minutes to complete. The rating scale that you
were using includes: (1) strongly disagree, (2) disagree, (3) neither agree nor
disagree, (4) agree, and (5) strongly agree.
95
Please complete the following demographic information. This information is
important to properly categorize the survey responses.
Paygrade: ________ Rating / Designator _________
Age: ________
Length of Service: ________yr _______mo
Gender of Mentor: M / F
The following questions relate to the immediate organization in which you work.
Please write the appropriate response on the line to the left of the question.
______ The organization in which I work has __________ employees.

a. less than 50
b. 50-100
c. 100 – 500
d. greater than 500
______ My organization has a/an ___________ mentoring program.

a. formal
b. informal
c. both formal and informal
d. non-existent
______ My mentor is __________________

a. within the United States Navy
b. outside the United States Navy
______ My mentor helps me with _______________ issues.

a. personal
b. professional
c. both personal and professional
96
Please write the number that corresponds to the most appropriate response on the line
to the left of the statement.
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Agree Strongly
Disagree nor Disagree Agree
______ 1. Meetings with my mentor(s) occur at least on a monthly basis.
______ 2. The relationship with my mentor(s) is (are) productive.
______ 3. My mentor(s) consider my goals and desires of the protégé ahead of their
own wishes.
______ 4. There is benefit to the mentor for sharing his/her knowledge.
______ 5. My mentor(s) and supervisor collaborate to assist in my development.
______ 6. There is no conflict between the guidance of my mentor(s) and the guidance
of my supervisor.
______ 7. Mentors meet my expectations as a protégé.
______ 8. The organization provides adequate opportunity for me, as a protégé, to

practice skills.
______ 9. The organization provides adequate opportunity for me, as a protégé, to

apply knowledge.
______ 10. There are rewards for applying knowledge/skills in the workplace.
______ 11. There are NO penalties for applying knowledge/skills in the workplace.
______ 12. The results that I receive through the mentoring relationship help me to
contribute to the organization.
______ 13. Protégés prosper within my organization because of the mentoring

relationship.
______ 14. My organization is more effective as a result of the mentoring program.
97
Please write the number that corresponds to the most appropriate response on the line
to the left of the statement.
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Agree Strongly
Disagree nor Disagree Agree
______ 15. My organization openly supports successful mentoring relationships.
______ 16. My Mentor is unconditionally accepting of me as a fallible human being.
______ 17. My mentor(s) provides access to professional networking opportunities.
______ 18. My mentor(s) provides assistance with the political aspects of the job.
______ 19. My mentor(s) understands their strengths and weaknesses.
______ 20. My mentor(s) is (are) experienced in their field.
______ 21. My mentor(s) is (are) patient.
______ 22. My mentor(s) provides appropriate feedback for my efforts.
______ 23. My mentor(s) provides the information that I need to see the “big picture.”
______ 24. The benefit of the mentoring relationship is designed for the benefit of the
protégé.
______ 25. My mentor(s) specifically encourages me to participate in professional

development opportunities.
______ 26. My mentor helps me define and achieve career goals.
______ 27. My mentor helps me define and achieve personal goals.
Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. The input you have provided is
valuable and greatly appreciated. Please place this completed survey in the envelope
provided.
98
APPENDIX B. LEADERSHIP PRACTICES INVENTORY (LPI)
Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI)
On the next two pages are thirty statements describing various leadership
behaviors. Please read each carefully. Then look at the rating scale and decide how
frequently you engage in the behavior described.
Here’s the rating scale that you’ll be using:
1= Almost Never 6= Sometimes

2= Rarely 7=Fairly Often
3=Seldom 8=Usually
4=Once in a while 9=Very Frequently
5=Occasionally 10=Almost Always
In selecting each response, please be realistic about the extent to which you
actually engage in the behavior. Do not answer in terms of how you would like to see
yourself or in terms of what you should be doing. Answer in terms of how you typically
behave – on most days, on most projects, and with most people.
For each statement, decide on a rating and record it in the blank to the left of the
statement. Do not leave any blank incomplete. Please remember that all statements are
applicable. If you feel that any statement does not apply to you, in all likelihood it is
because you do not frequently engage in the behavior. In this case, assign a rating of 3 or
lower. When you have responded to all thirty statements, return this survey according to
the instructions provided.
Important Further Instructions
After completing this survey:
ENCLOSE AND SEAL all completed materials (the Mentorship Survey, the Participant
Letter of Consent, and the Leadership Practices Inventory) in the envelope provided by
your instructor. Return the sealed envelope as directed by the Instructor.
Once again thank you very much for your participation in this research project.
Copyright 2004 James M. Kouzes and Barry Z. Posner. All rights reserved. Used with permission
99
To what extent do you typically engage in the following behaviors? Choose
the number that best applies to each statement and record it in the blank to
the left of the statement.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Almost Rarely Seldom Once Occasionally Sometimes Fairly Usually Very Almost
Never in a while Often Frequently Always
_____ 1. I seek out challenging opportunities that test my own skills and abilities.
_____ 2. I talk about future trends that will influence how our work gets done.
_____ 3. I develop cooperative relationships among the people I work with.
_____ 4. I set the personal example of what I expect from others.
_____ 5. I praise people for a job well done.
_____ 6. I challenge people to try out new and innovative approaches to their work.
_____ 7. I describe a compelling image of what our future could be like.
_____ 8. I actively listen to diverse points of view.
_____ 9. I spend time and energy on making certain that the people I work with adhere to
the principles and standards that we have agreed on.
_____ 10. I make it a point to let people know about my confidence in their abilities.
_____ 11. I search outside the formal boundaries of my organization for innovative ways
to improve what we do.
_____ 12. I appeal to others to share an exciting dream of the future.
_____ 13. I treat others with dignity and respect.
_____ 14. I follow through on the promises and commitments that I make.
_____ 15. I make sure that people are creatively rewarded for their contributions to the
success of our projects.
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Almost Rarely Seldom Once Occasionally Sometimes Fairly Usually Very Almost
Never in a while Often Frequently Always
_____ 16. I ask “What can we learn?” when things do not go as expected.
_____ 17. I show others how their long-term interests can be realized by enlisting in a
common vision.
_____ 18. I support the decisions that people make on their own.
_____ 19. I am clear about my philosophy of leadership.
_____ 20. I publicly recognize people who exemplify commitment to shared values.
_____ 21. I experiment and take risks even when there is a chance of failure.
_____ 22. I am contagiously enthusiastic and positive about future possibilities.
_____ 23. I give people a great deal of freedom and choice in deciding how to do their
work.
_____ 24. I make certain that we set achievable goals, make concrete plans, and establish
measurable milestones for the projects and programs that we work on.
_____ 25. I find ways to celebrate accomplishments.
_____ 26. I take the initiative to overcome obstacles even when outcomes are uncertain.
_____ 27. I speak with genuine conviction about the higher meaning and purpose of
work.
_____ 28. I ensure that people grow in their jobs by learning new skills and developing
themselves.
_____ 29. I make progress toward goals one step at a time.
_____ 30. I give the members of the team lots of appreciation and support for their
contributions.
101
APPENDIX C. STRATEGY MAP
MISSION: Maintain, Train, and Equip Combat-Ready Naval Forces Capable of
Winning Wars, Deterring Aggression, and Maintaining Freedom of the Sea
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES
Win the War Improve Integrate Capture funds to Develop the
on Global Readiness for capabilities recapitalize the 21st century
Terrorism Global into Joint Navy workforce
Response Force
LEARNING AND
Strategic Climate for Action
GROWTH Competencies
Strategic
PERSPECTIVE
Technologies
Mentor skills
Motivation/Incentives
Knowledge
Management
Organizational
culture/climate
102
APPENDIX D. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR THE MENTORSHIP SELF-
ASSESSMENT SURVEY ITEMS
Item N Min. Max. M SD

Meetings with my mentor(s) occur at least on a
monthly basis. 250 1.00 5.00 3.31 1.39
The relationship with my mentor(s) is (are)

productive. 250 1.00 5.00 3.94 1.09
My mentor(s) consider my goals and desires of the

protégé ahead of their own wishes. 250 1.00 5.00 3.47 1.06
There is benefit to the mentor for sharing his/her

knowledge. 250 1.00 5.00 4.15 .97
My mentor(s) and supervisor collaborate to assist in

my development. 250 1.00 5.00 3.09 1.28
There is no conflict between the guidance of my

mentor(s) and the guidance of my supervisor. 250 1.00 5.00 3.50 1.14
Mentors meet my expectations as a protégé. 250 1.00 5.00 3.74 1.09
The organization provides adequate opportunity for

me, as a protégé, to practice skills. 250 1.00 5.00 3.41 1.06
The organization provides adequate opportunity for

me, as a protégé, to apply knowledge. 250 1.00 5.00 3.63 .98
There are rewards for applying knowledge/skills in

the workplace. 250 1.00 5.00 3.61 1.13
There are NO penalties for applying

knowledge/skills in the workplace. 250 1.00 5.00 3.02 1.25
The results that I receive through the mentoring

relationship help me to contribute to the
organization. 250 1.00 5.00 3.78 1.00
Protégés prosper within my organization because of

the mentoring relationship. 250 1.00 5.00 3.13 .97
My organization is more effective as a result of the

mentoring program. 250 1.00 5.00 3.00 1.04
103
My organization openly supports successful

mentoring relationships. 250 1.00 5.00 3.65 1.06
My Mentor is unconditionally accepting of me as a

fallible human being. 250 1.00 5.00 3.85 1.04
My mentor(s) provides access to professional

networking opportunities. 250 1.00 5.00 3.88 1.03
My mentor(s) provides assistance with the political

aspects of the job. 250 1.00 5.00 3.74 1.05
My mentor(s) understands their strengths and

weaknesses. 250 1.00 5.00 3.95 .97
My mentor(s) is (are) experienced in their field. 250 1.00 5.00 4.24 .96
My mentor(s) is (are) patient. 250 1.00 5.00 4.14 .98
My mentor(s) provides appropriate feedback for my

efforts. 250 1.00 5.00 4.08 .98
My mentor(s) provides the information that I need to

see the “big picture.” 250 1.00 5.00 3.97 1.03
The benefit of the mentoring relationship is designed

for the benefit of the protégé. 250 1.00 5.00 3.80 .95
My mentor(s) specifically encourages me to

participate in professional development
opportunities. 250 1.00 5.00 4.02 1.03
My mentor helps me define and achieve career

goals. 250 1.00 5.00 4.00 1.07
My mentor helps me define and achieve personal

goals. 250 1.00 5.00 3.90 1.12
104
APPENDIX E. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR THE LEADERSHIP
PRACTICES INVENTORY (LPI) ITEMS

I seek out challenging opportunities that test my
own skills and abilities. 250 3.00 10.00 7.70 1.74
I talk about future trends that will influence how our

work gets done. 250 2.00 10.00 7.22 1.83
I develop cooperative relationships among the

people I work with. 250 2.00 10.00 8.27 1.66
I set the personal example of what I expect from

others. 250 1.00 10.00 8.56 1.39
I praise people for a job well done. 250 1.00 10.00 8.71 1.37
I challenge people to try out new and innovative

approaches to their work. 250 1.00 10.00 7.44 1.94
I describe a compelling image of what our future

could be like. 250 1.00 10.00 6.37 2.35
I actively listen to diverse points of view. 250 1.00 10.00 8.31 1.54
I spend time and energy on making certain that the

people I work with adhere to the principles and
standards that we have agreed on. 250 1.00 10.00 7.60 1.94
I make it a point to let people know about my

confidence in their abilities. 250 1.00 10.00 7.90 1.76
I search outside the formal boundaries of my

organization for innovative ways to improve what
we do. 250 1.00 10.00 6.93 2.22
I appeal to others to share an exciting dream of the

future. 250 1.00 10.00 6.40 2.50
I treat others with dignity and respect. 250 6.00 10.00 9.26 1.02
I follow through on the promises and commitments

that I make. 250 2.00 10.00 9.00 1.12
105
I make sure that people are creatively rewarded for

their contributions to the success of our projects. 250 1.00 10.00 7.69 1.94
I ask “What can we learn?” when things do not go

as expected. 248 1.00 10.00 7.23 2.15
I show others how their long-term interests can be

realized by enlisting in a common vision. 248 1.00 10.00 6.78 2.18
I support the decisions that people make on their

own. 248 1.00 10.00 7.76 1.44
I am clear about my philosophy of leadership. 248 1.00 10.00 8.01 1.78

I publicly recognize people who exemplify
commitment to shared values. 247 1.00 10.00 7.68 1.94
I experiment and take risks even when there is a

chance of failure. 247 1.00 10.00 6.90 2.13
I am contagiously enthusiastic and positive about

future possibilities. 247 1.00 10.00 7.64 1.91
I give people a great deal of freedom and choice in

deciding how to do their work. 247 1.00 10.00 7.55 1.72
I make certain that we set achievable goals, make

concrete plans, and establish measurable milestones
for the projects and programs that we work on. 247 1.00 10.00 7.77 1.84
I find ways to celebrate accomplishments. 247 1.00 10.00 7.67 2.01
I take the initiative to overcome obstacles even

when outcomes are uncertain. 247 1.00 10.00 8.03 1.69
I speak with genuine conviction about the higher

meaning and purpose of work. 247 1.00 10.00 7.55 1.91
I ensure that people grow in their jobs by learning

new skills and developing themselves. 247 1.00 10.00 8.02 1.63
I make progress toward goals one step at a time. 247 1.00 10.00 8.39 1.44
I give the members of the team lots of appreciation

and support for their contributions. 247 1.00 10.00 8.45 1.69
106
APPENDIX F. INDIVIDUAL BIVARIATE PEARSON CORRELATIONS FOR
RESEARCH QUESTION 1
MSA Item LPI1 LPI2 LPI3 LPI4 LPI5

Meetings with my mentor(s) occur at
least on a monthly basis. .109 .064 .001 .082 .198**
The relationship with my mentor(s) is

(are) productive. .081 .055 .057 .139* .098
My mentor(s) consider my goals and

desires of the protégé ahead of their own
wishes. .135* .120 .089 .172** .050
There is benefit to the mentor for

sharing his/her knowledge. .185** .102 .199** .235** .214**
My mentor(s) and supervisor collaborate

to assist in my development. .162* .397** .134* .107 .379**
There is no conflict between the

guidance of my mentor(s) and the
guidance of my supervisor. .088 .022 .276** .103 .014
Mentors meet my expectations as a

protégé. .379** .053 .083 .276** .108
The organization provides adequate

opportunity for me, as a protégé, to
practice skills. .273** .066 .198** .198** .183**

apply knowledge. .112 .046 .224** .191** .740**
There are rewards for applying

knowledge/skills in the workplace. .107 .095 .197** .199** .150*

knowledge/skills in the workplace. -.085 .016 -.001 -.054 -.041
The results that I receive through the

mentoring relationship help me to
contribute to the organization. .079 .053 .139* .569** .190**
107
Protégés prosper within my organization
because of the mentoring relationship. .050 .075 .054 .073 .073
My organization is more effective as a

result of the mentoring program. .007 .009 .055 .030 .078
My organization openly supports

successful mentoring relationships. -.046 .003 .080 .349** .098
My Mentor is unconditionally accepting

of me as a fallible human being. .004 -.031 .049 .064 .060
My mentor(s) provides access to

professional networking opportunities. -.052 -.009 .107 .106 -.015
My mentor(s) provides assistance with

the political aspects of the job. .044 -.001 .089 .037 .061
My mentor(s) understands their

strengths and weaknesses. .053 .003 .017 .077 .076
My mentor(s) is (are) experienced in

their field. .076 -.050 .003 .076 .033
My mentor(s) is (are) patient. .054 -.015 .008 .055 -.082
My mentor(s) provides appropriate

feedback for my efforts. .042 .001 .059 .119 .223**
My mentor(s) provides the information

that I need to see the “big picture.” .460** .083 .097 .134* .121
The benefit of the mentoring

relationship is designed for the benefit
of the protégé. .100 .010 .093 .104 .038
My mentor(s) specifically encourages

me to participate in professional
development opportunities. .223** .090 .124 .532** .127*
My mentor helps me define and achieve

career goals. .067 .064 .228** .123 .092

personal goals. .019 .016 .114 .144* .071
108
least on a monthly basis. .071 .077 .101 .084 .123

(are) productive. .097 .111 .077 .135* .091

wishes. .080 .152* .133* .198** .094

sharing his/her knowledge. .210** .172** .157* .252** .185**

to assist in my development. .246** .160* .120 .092 .223**

guidance of my supervisor. .088 .151* .111 .108 .053

protégé. .150* .340** .127* .311** .218**

practice skills. .381** .237** .234** .135* .124

apply knowledge. -.139* .556** .532** .126* .327**

knowledge/skills in the workplace. .588** .417** .169** .417** .191**

knowledge/skills in the workplace. -.118 -.072 -.067 .441** -.008

contribute to the organization. .239** .254** .172** .548** .430**

because of the mentoring relationship. .548** .185** .060 .189** .740**
109

result of the mentoring program. .169** .268** .105 .264** .228**

successful mentoring relationships. .197** .231** .065 .099 .058

of me as a fallible human being. .070 .072 .050 .100 .070

professional networking opportunities. .047 .082 .024 -.011 .040

the political aspects of the job. .093 .089 .087 .119 .065

strengths and weaknesses. .073 .098 .101 .139* .114

their field. .058 .079 .026 .100 .108
My mentor(s) is (are) patient. -.023 .076 -.023 .043 -.114

feedback for my efforts. .116 .264** .149* .223** .119

that I need to see the “big picture.” .175** .165** .157* .268** .144*

of the protégé. .182** .127* .063 .093 .083

development opportunities. .289** .152* .113 .139* .273**

career goals. .117 .149* .116 .289** .536**

personal goals. .097 .149* .107 .118 .137*
110
least on a monthly basis. .024 .114 .112 .039 .008

(are) productive. .070 .138* .152* .205** .070

wishes. .152* .155* .168** .206** .099

sharing his/her knowledge. .209** .115 .240** .191** .157*

to assist in my development. .115 .190** .085 .143* .379**

guidance of my supervisor. .066 .139* .143* .076 .020

protégé. .094 .210** .354** .349** .116

practice skills. .228** .146* .191** .052 .201**

apply knowledge. .419** .221** .505** .382** .204**

knowledge/skills in the workplace. .198** .191** .109 .121 .760**

knowledge/skills in the workplace. -.050 .087 .008 -.086 -.098

contribute to the organization. .167** .201** .151* .166** .532**

because of the mentoring relationship. .505** .168** .098 .090 .601**
111
result of the mentoring program. .077 .185** .100 -.066 .121

successful mentoring relationships. .066 .119 .113 .040 .065

of me as a fallible human being. .077 .116 .340** .093 .023

professional networking opportunities. -.007 .026 .093 -.013 -.012

the political aspects of the job. -.020 .233** .276** .086 .023

strengths and weaknesses. .032 .124 .165** .133* .021

their field. .036 .134* .105 .076 -.024
My mentor(s) is (are) patient. .007 .223** .112 .007 -.016

feedback for my efforts. .046 .165** .195** .135* .029

that I need to see the “big picture.” .273** .570** .242** .206** .097

of the protégé. .228** .111 .379** .168** .081

development opportunities. .379** .419** .260** .146* .601**

career goals. .100 .454** .281** .183** .119

personal goals. .077 .234** .168** .170** .101
112
least on a monthly basis. .197** .137* .106 .096 .235**

(are) productive. .202** .225** .112 .239** .206**

wishes. .197** .232** .166** .295** .199**

sharing his/her knowledge. .305** .300** .089 .296** .244**

to assist in my development. .218** .234** .397** .382** .390**

guidance of my supervisor. .151* .143* .127* .157* .099

protégé. .126* .192** .251** .132* .212**

practice skills. .188** .214** .083 .231** .176**

apply knowledge. .548** .419** .154* .354** .460**

knowledge/skills in the workplace. .708** .176** .218** .233** .197**

knowledge/skills in the workplace. -.100 -.063 -.007 -.020 -.035

contribute to the organization. .209** .252** .112 .718** .233**

because of the mentoring relationship. .101 .239** .097 .172** .740**
113
result of the mentoring program. .075 .189** .084 .379** .103

successful mentoring relationships. .010 .074 .097 .454** .067

of me as a fallible human being. .099 .170** .106 .251** .220**

professional networking opportunities. -.013 .036 .054 .092 .073

the political aspects of the job. .114 .179** .053 .264** .179**

strengths and weaknesses. .143* .233** .569** .205** .354**

their field. .176** .708** .123 .124 .197**
My mentor(s) is (are) patient. .104 .083 .060 .058 -.001

feedback for my efforts. .233** .327** .162* .584** .225**

that I need to see the “big picture.” .195** .556** .172** .415** .236**

of the protégé. .135* .149* .102 .382** .092

development opportunities. .768** .221** .251** .271** .507**

career goals. .168** .266** .150* .590** .183**

personal goals. .157* .419** .340** .760** .196**
114
least on a monthly basis. .028 .033 .127* .115 .095

(are) productive. .043 .135* .135* .165** .105

wishes. .118 .152* .149* .169** .143*

sharing his/her knowledge. .213** .196** .165** .236** .209**

to assist in my development. .123 .195** .202** .586** .214**

guidance of my supervisor. .068 .173** .063 .202** .133*

protégé. .176** .382** .185** .188** .233**

practice skills. .092 .167** .176** .154* .254**

apply knowledge. .536** .222** .153* .195** .246**

knowledge/skills in the workplace. .430** .181** .181** .138* .476**

knowledge/skills in the workplace. .047 -.035 -.052 -.093 -.036

contribute to the organization. .112 .311** .074 .708** .327**

because of the mentoring relationship. .094 .100 .699** .201** .693**
115
result of the mentoring program. .070 .100 .095 .134* .716**

successful mentoring relationships. -.021 .064 .349** .165** .228**

of me as a fallible human being. .035 .085 -.004 .050 .080

professional networking opportunities. .064 .091 .076 .084 .022

the political aspects of the job. .122 .150* .109 .190** .116

strengths and weaknesses. .039 .108 .102 .124 .096

their field. .010 .052 .062 .123 .029
My mentor(s) is (are) patient. .013 .059 .117 .051 -.004

feedback for my efforts. .063 .170** .149* .218** .133*

that I need to see the “big picture.” .050 .237** .117 .197** .161**

of the protégé. .045 0.118 .068 .190** .134*

development opportunities. .055 .507** .149* .167** .382**

career goals. .068 .209** .170** .215** .234**

personal goals. .058 .251** .165** .213** .390**
116
least on a monthly basis. .162* .189** .123 .145* .209**

(are) productive. .151* .235** .134* .224** .143*

wishes. .249** .277** .099 .243** .150*

sharing his/her knowledge. .287** .234** .246** .236** .236**

to assist in my development. .253** .507** .189** .209** .421**

guidance of my supervisor. .197** .125 .113 .328** .169**

protégé. .153* .330** .191** .221** .165**

practice skills. .209** .125 .185** .181** .222**

apply knowledge. .354** .570** .584** .214** .588**

knowledge/skills in the workplace. .382** .120 .157* .152* .344**

knowledge/skills in the workplace. -.018 .005 -.066 -.030 .062

contribute to the organization. .188** .221** .613** .185** .590**

because of the mentoring relationship. .172** .505** .151* .104 .114
117
result of the mentoring program. .149* .276** .097 .064 .134*

successful mentoring relationships. .143* .093 .096 .115 .122

of me as a fallible human being. .094 .226** .056 .080 .083

professional networking opportunities. .067 .115 .059 .057 .048

the political aspects of the job. .693** .266** .062 .201** .223**

strengths and weaknesses. .145* .296** .089 .231** .699**

their field. .699** .224** .016 .162* .079
My mentor(s) is (are) patient. -.025 .080 .034 .099 .065

feedback for my efforts. .173** .310** .708** .126* .601**

that I need to see the “big picture.” .238** .359** .134* .476** .161**

of the protégé. .214** .154* 0.104 .202** .092

development opportunities. .221** .310** .154* .284** .170**

career goals. .215** .284** .142* .195** .145*

personal goals. .179** .238** .108 .252** .601**
Note. *p < .05, **p < .01
118

Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

SUCCESSFUL MENTORING RELATIONSHIPS AND EXEMPLARY

LEADERSHIP PRACTICES AMONG WOMEN PROTEGES WITHIN THE

UNITED STATES NAVY

PAUL HARDT, Ed.D., Faculty Mentor and Chair

PHYLLIS CLAYTON, Ed.D., Committee Member

CHERYL MCCONNAUGHEY, Ed.D., Committee Member

Harry McLenighan, Ed.D., Dean, School of Education

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

The improvement of overall organizational performance is directly related to the

performance of individuals within the organization. With an organizational objective

of ensuring success through leadership development, a well-established mentoring

of the program. A successful mentoring program needs to consider these advantages

achieving the objectives of the organization. The examination of mentoring

relationships with regard to gender is a critical factor in determining whether these

between having participated in successful mentoring relationships and the Five

Practices of Exemplary Leadership assessed through the application of the Leadership

significant stage of human performance improvement is the assessment of the gap

Employing the appropriate leadership traits, and providing productive mentoring

likelihood of organizational improvement through improved performance of this often

situations/traits were related to exemplary leadership practice and advancement within

instrument to guide the development of future leader/mentors. The relationship that

exists between exemplary leadership practices and the participation in successful

mentoring relationships showed a potential return on investment through the

incorporation of mentoring as a substantial driver in the development of women within

This work is dedicated to my immediate and extended family.

completion. Thank you for your support throughout.

To my Dad, you have encouraged my educational pursuits for as far back as I

can remember, thank you.

attempt to show you daily.

To my dissertation committee as well as the Training and Performance

sharing your accumulated wisdom and experience.

To Dr. Cheryl McConnaughey, your knowledge of the research process and

your outside perspective has often shed a new light on my views.

Introduction to the Problem 1

Background of the Study 2

Purpose of the Study 4

Significance of the Study 5

Statement of the Problem 9

Assumptions and Limitations 13

Organization of the Remainder of the Study 14

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 16

Organizational Analysis and Alignment 18

Relationship between Mentoring and Leadership 33

The Assessment of Leadership Styles 33

Comparison of Research Designs 47

Data Collection Procedures 53

Data Analysis Procedures 56

CHAPTER 4. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 59

CHAPTER 5. RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 74

Recommendations for Further Study 86

APPENDIX B. LEADERSHIP PRACTICES INVENTORY (LPI) 99

APPENDIX C. STRATEGY MAP 102

APPENDIX D. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR THE MENTORSHIP SELF-

APPENDIX E. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR THE LEADERSHIP

APPENDIX F. INDIVIDUAL BIVARIATE PEARSON CORRELATIONS FOR

Table 1. Distribution of women in the United States Navy by paygrade 23